TRIBHUWAN SINGH Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises an important question of law which is to the following effect: Whether an employee having been covered by the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, is debarred from getting compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, because of Section 53 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948?

(2.) APPELLANT Tribhuwan Singh was employed in the factory known as Novelty Tools Centre which was situated in the Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur. On 13.3.1989 at about 6.20 p.m., he was going to the factory on his cycle. Jeep RRG 6491 driven by one Ramesh Chandra hit him. Tribhuwan Singh sustained injuries. He claimed compensation of Rs. 3,97,000/ -alleging that the jeep was being driven rashly and negligently. The owner and the driver denied the accident. The insurance company amongst other grounds raised a plea that the claimant had received amount under the Employees State Insurance Act, and, therefore, the claim application was not maintainable.

(3.) THE contention of Mr. Mathur is four folds. First, the accident had occurred on the public road and therefore, the injury suffered by the claimant could not be held to be 'employment injury'. In this connection, he has placed reliance on the case of Deputy General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Gopal Mudaliar 1983 ACJ 128 (Karnataka) and G.N. Vishwanath v. Andal 1982 ACJ (Supp) 128 (Karnataka). Second, even if it is held that the appellant had suffered 'employment injuries', he was entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, because Section 75(1)(e) of the E.S.I. Act has not taken away the right to claim compensation/damages for injury or death of a person arising from a motor accident. Third, in any case, the appellant has not been given any compensation for the permanent disability and he was given benefits for the temporary disability only under the E.S.I; Act. Fourth, Section 92 -E of the Motor Vehicles Act has overriding effect and, therefore, in any case, compensation under the principle of 'no fault liability' could not be denied to the appellant.