NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SARO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties and with their consent this appeal is disposed of at the stage of hearing under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) In a motor accident on 25.9.1984, one Tisu Mahto alias Basudeo Mahto, driver of truck bearing registration No. BHV 7125 lost his life. His dependants, namely, the widow, mother and five minor sons filed claim application under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was registered as Compensation Case No. 133 of 1987. The Tribunal found that the claimants did not claim or receive any compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 from the employer of the deceased and the claim case was not barred by limitation. Tisu Mahto alias Basudeo Mahto died in an accident while driving the truck (BHV 7125) and his dependants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,70,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim application till payment. The owner of the truck and the insurer both were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and the insurance company was liable to indemnify the owner's liability.

(3.) Under Section 110-AA of the Act the person entitled to compensation may claim either under the Workmen's Compensation Act or Motor Vehicles Act. In my view, in order to negate the claim made under the Act it must be shown that the person entitled to compensation had made a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The key words are 'may claim such compensation' under either of the statutes. These words clearly indicate that the person entitled to compensation must take a conscious decision and opt for compensation under one or the other statute. The option is on the dependants to choose their remedy under either of the statutes. In the present case it was established that the dependants of the deceased did not claim or receive any compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I, therefore, find that they opted for and were entitled to compensation under the Act.