UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SOM WATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal by the Insurance Company is on the ground that the claimants had already availed a benefit under ESI Act, the deceased being a person, who was covered by the ESI scheme. The Tribunal, while considering the objection of the insurer regarding non-maintainability of the petition in terms of Section 53 of the ESI Act, held that the bar will operate for securing award only under the Workmen's Compensation Act and not when the provisions of the MV Act are invoked. Section 53 of the ESI Act reads thus,

(2.) The object of the section is that the employer is not foisted with more than one claim for the same accident and once the claim has had the benefit under the ESI Act, a separate claim under the MV Act shall not be permitted. There has been a preponderance of case law from literally from High Courts of India to the same effect. (Kindly see, Mangalamma v. Express Newspapers Limited, 1982 AIR(Mad) 223; Ganpat Pratap Bhogle v. H.L. Roche, 1994 ACJ 1101; United India Insurance Company Limited v. K.N. Thipperudraiah, 1997 ACJ 878; United India Insurance Company Limited v. Vijaya R. Baait, 2007 ACJ 463; Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Mohan Kumar, 2007 ACJ 420 ; Pauline Decriye v. M.F. Yata Singh, 2005 ACJ 1427, In this case, admittedly the accident taken place in the course of his employment.

(3.) The pursuit under MV Act is barred by virtue of provision of Section 53 and the claimants could not have been duplicated the claim before the Tribunal also, without forsaking the benefit under the ESI Act. This issue is now squarely answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Hamida Khatoon, 2009 156 PunLR 755. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled: