Ker HC : Claim filed under MV Act withdrawn after interim award – subsequent proceedings under Workmen’s Compensation Act not barred

We are of the opinion that merely for the reason that earlier the claimants have proceeded under the MV Act and later, withdrew the said proceedings and filed WCC for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, it cannot be held that the subsequent claim is barred by Section 167 of the MV Act. Moreover, the interim award which was received under Section 140 of the MV Act is also seen adjusted towards the compensation granted by the impugned order. {Para 8}

9. In the above view, we find that the application filed before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is not hit by the bar of Section 167. In the above view, there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned award granting compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act after deducting the interim award of Rs. 50,000/- received under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 

 In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

(Before K. Harilal and Annie John, JJ.)

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Mary alias Baby and Others

Decided on December 14, 2018

Citation: 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 8199

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether Motor accident claim tribunal can deduct compensation granted to dependents of workman under workman Compensation Act?

 The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, as also, the High Court, ordered a deduction therefrom of a sum of ` 3,26,140 (paid to the claimants under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923). The said deduction gives full effect to Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988, inasmuch as it awards compensation to the respondents-claimants under the enactment based on the option first exercised, and also ensures that the respondents-claimants are not allowed dual benefit under the two enactments.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 937 of 2013.

Decided On: 05.02.2013

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dyamavva and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.S. Chauhan and J.S. Khehar, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2013 SC 1853, MANU/SC/0108/2013.

Read full judgement here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Compensation for death of workman in motor accident-dependents can seek compensation either under workman Compensation Act or Motor accident claim Tribunal

Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Section 8--Motor Vehicles Act, 1988--Sections 166 and 167--Compensation for death of workman--Workman died during course of employment--Employer suo motu determined compensation under Section 8 of W.C. Act and deposited amount of compensation with W.C. Commissioner--Having been summoned by Commissioner, widow got her statement recorded before Commissioner on 20.4.2004--But well before that date she and other claimants had already filed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act--Said claim petition constitutes option under Section 167 of M.V. Act of claimants to seek compensation under M.V. Act--Determination of compensation by M.A.C. Tribunal rightly made--No interference warranted.

The procedure under Section 8 of the W.C. Act is initiated at the behest of the employer "suo motu", and as such, cannot be considered as an exercise of option by the dependants/claimants to seek compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The position would have been otherwise, if the dependants had raised a claim for compensation under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. In the said eventuality, certainly compensation would be paid to the dependants at the instance (and option) of the claimants. In other words, if the claimants had moved an application under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 1923, they would have been deemed to have exercised their option to seek compensation under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Suffice it to state that no such application was ever filed by the respondents-claimants herein under Section 10 of the W.C. Act. In the above view of the matter, it can be stated that the respondents-claimants having never exercised their option to seek compensation under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, could not be deemed to be precluded from seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Ratio Decidendi:

"If Claimant has exercised their option to seek compensation under one enactment then he shall be precluded from seeking compensation again under another enactment."

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 937 of 2013.

Decided On: 05.02.2013

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dyamavva and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.S. Chauhan and J.S. Khehar, JJ.

Author: J.S. Khehar, J.

Citation: AIR 2013 SC 1853, MANU/SC/0108/2013

Print Page

Whether widow is entitled to get compensation under workman compensation Act if she remarries?

 Section 2(d) of the Employees' (Workmen's) Compensation Act, 1923 (for short referred to as the Act)defines "dependents". The provision reads as under: {Para 11}

2(d). 'Dependant' means any of the following relatives of a deceased employees namely; (i) a widow, a minor legitimate or adopted son, an unmarried legitimate or adopted daughter, or a widowed mother; and

12. A plain reading of the above definition makes it clear that as on the date of death; wife of the deceased who becomes a widow is treated as a dependant and is made eligible to receive compensation. The Act does not make a distinction between a person who remains widow or who re-marries again.

14. Similar question has fallen for consideration before the High Court of Rajasthan in case of R.B. Moondra and Company Vs. Bhanwari and Others Contention that widow is debarred from claiming the compensation on account of re-marriage is rejected. Para 19 reads as under:

The last contention that the widow became debarred from claiming compensation on account of her remarriage has also no force because in the Act there is no such provision that after remarriage widow of the deceased would not be regarded as a dependent. Under Section 21 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a widow remains a dependant, within the meaning of that section so long as she is not remarried. But the definition of the 'dependant' under the Act is not so restricted and the fact that she has remarried will not disentitle her to claim compensation under the Act.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3122 of 2002

Decided On: 24.04.2013

Mandadi Adilakshmi Vs. Vallabhaneni Siva Prasad and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P. Naveen Rao, J.

Citation: 2014 ACJ 950 (AP), MANU/AP/0562/2013.

Print Page

Whether commissioner under workman compensation Act can grant interest on compensation from date of incident?

 On a complete evaluation of the Workmen's

Compensation       Act,  since   re-christened   as   "Employees

Compensation Act, 1923", we see that the liability to pay

compensation is statutory. Section 3 onwards in Chapter II of

that Act would show that the liability that arises is fixed

statutorily. It runs from the sufferance of the incident that

generates the right in the employee or workman to

compensation. Hence, the employer has a statutory liability to

deposit amounts which he admits as compensation. Similarly,

even if there is any settlement of claims to the extent

permitted under that Act, such agreements can work only with

the seal of approval of the Commissioner. The liability to pay

interest would start to run from the non-performance and

non-discharge of the obligation to pay the compensation. That

liability being a statutory one under Section 3, it would run

from the date of the incident. May be, in exceptionally


exceptional cases where there is grave and enormous delay in

making a demand for compensation, the Courts may take a

different view; of course, without ignoring the fact that the

legislation is meant to provide support to a socially and

economically challenged and marginalized sector of the

society. With this, we follow the judgment in M.F.A.No.59 of

2011 and hold that the Commissioner was justified in granting

interest from the date of the incident.

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT:

               MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
                                                              &
                 MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

                   12TH DAY OF JUNE 2012

               M.F.A.(W.C.Act) No.56 of 2008 (F)
                               
            THE MANAGER, LETCHMI ESTATE,
           Vs

          M.MURUGAN 12159, 

Print Page

Whether workman compensation commissioner can grant compensation if claim is rejected by motor vehicle tribunal?

 Considering the ratio laid down in Dyavamma (supra) so also in
Mastan (supra), as discussed above, the facts from the present case are
different. In the present case, the applicants have filed claimed
compensation of Rs.10,10,000/- before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Kolhapur under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However,
the claim was taken as a claim under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles
Act and the Tribunal dismissed the claim on two grounds, i.e., the
deceased was driving in a rash and negligent manner and, therefore, as
he was rash and negligent, the claim cannot be granted under 163A and
also he was having a salary of more than Rs.40,000/- and so the
compensation cannot be given. As the claim was dismissed on this
ground, the other option was chosen to approach the Commissioner for
Workmen's Compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act by the
claimants i.e., his widow, minor daughter and the parents of the deceased.

In fact, the finding given by the learned Member, Tribunal, Kolhapur, is
erroneous and illegal. Under section 163A, defence of negligence is not
available to the insurer. So also, the Tribunal should have restricted the
claim upto Rs.40,000/- as annual income of the deceased and accordingly,
fixed the compensation under section 163A itself. However, the said order
is not challenged in appeal. Instead, the other option of Workmen's
Compensation Act is preferred. I am in agreement with the view taken by
the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of
Kore Laxmi (supra), wherein the nature of the liability is correctly
distinguished. The liability under the Motor Vehicles Act is out of torts,
however, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, it is a strict statutory
liability. The sum and substance of these two provisions i.e., section 167
of the Motor Vehicles Act and section 3(5) of the Workmen's
Compensation Act is that the person should not get benefit of the
compensation twice out of the same cause.
27. Therefore, if the claim application is rejected on certain technicalities
before one forum, then, denying other forum will lead to depriving
dependents of the compensation for which they are otherwise entitled to.
Both the Workmen's Compensation Act and Motor Vehicles Act are social
legislations. The sections cannot be interpreted in such a manner so that
the object of the legislation will be frustrated. Though the claim is filed
before one forum and is rejected and later on, the claim is filed before the

other forum, then, giving compensation under the said Act is not a
deviation from the ratio laid down in either Mastan (supra) or in
Dyavamma (supra) as the person is not receiving double benefit.
28. It will be absolutely unjust to close the other option which is
available to the dependents of the deceased. The deceased has left
behind a widow and a minor daughter and parents. The employeeemployer
relationship is proved and the fact that the accident has taken
place in the course of his employment is also established. Therefore, only
because application was filed earlier and was rejected, hence, applying
the doctrine of election, the claimant cannot be estopped from filing this
application. The claimants need money to survive. The minor dependents
need money for their education and future. Ignorance of law is not a
defence, however, the Court cannot shut eyes to the realities and practical
difficulties faced by the litigants. The proceedings are filed by legal experts
who are the lawyers and due to some wrong notions, the litigants cannot
be deprived of their right to get justice and fair compensation. The words
'filing claim' is to be read with implication of 'receiving compensation'.
Thus, considering the core of the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme
Court and the High courts referred above, the claimant is prohibited to
enjoy double benefit and therefore, the relevant provisions are made in the
Workmen's Compensation Act and also Motor Vehicles Act.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.1342 OF 2014
with
CAF/1407/2014
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 
Vs.
Ms.Bharati Adhik Patil & Ors. 

 CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

 Dated: MAY 4, 2016

Print Page

Whether benefits available at time of final adjudication should be extended to workman as per workman compensation Act?

Shri Gastgar, learned Counsel appearing for the

appellants, has relied upon the judgment of the Honourable
Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs.
V.K.Neelkandan and others ( (1999) 2 SCC 256 ) to
support his contention that the benefit of increased limit of
deemed income of a workman was liable to be extended in the
case in hand. In view of the judgment of the Honourable Apex,
Court relied upon by the appellants, in the case of New India
Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. V.K.Neelkandan and others (cited
supra), however, the interpretation as has been made by the
learned Commissioner that the increase in the deemed income
vide notification 31st May, 2010, has to be prospectively made
applicable, cannot be sustained has to be rejected. The
Honourable Apex Court in the judgment cited supra has held
that the Workmen's Compensation Act, being a Special
Legislation for the benefit of the labour, any benefit, if is
conferred on the workmen, and the said benefit is available on
the date when the case is finally adjudicated, the said benefit
should be extended to the workmen.
11. The facts in the case of New India Assurance
Co.Ltd. Vs. V.K.Neelkandan and others (cited supra), were
thus: the accident had taken place in the year 1981. As per
the law operating at the relevant time , the deemed limit for
the income of the workman was Rs.1,000/- per month. The

compensation in the said matter was, however, claimed stating
the wages of the deceased workman to be Rs.1800/- per
month, which were being actually received by the said
deceased workman. The compensation was, however, assessed
by the Commissioner under the Act, deeming the wages as
Rs.1,000/- per month. In the meanwhile, Section 4 of the Act
was amended in 1995 by Amendment Act (30 of 1995) whereunder
the deemed income was increased from Rs.1,000/- to
Rs.2,000/-. In the aforesaid background, the Honourable Apex
Court ruled that the benefit conferred on the workman available
on the date when the case is finally adjudicated was liable to be
extended to the workman. The Honourable Apex Court,
therefore, enhanced the amount of compensation by calculating
the same on the basis of the actual wages of Rs.8000/- being
drawn by the deceased workman.
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.3103 OF 2015
 Varsha Santosh Birajdar,

VERSUS
 Sujata Ashok Pokharkar,

CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.

Date of pronouncing judgment:  5/4/2016
Citation:2016(3) ALLMR362

Print Page

Whether a divorced wife is widow after death of husband?

A widow is a woman, as we
understand from the meaning of the term in its ordinary sense, whose
husband is dead and who has not married again. A man is husband of
a woman only as long as there is no snapping of matrimonial relations
by a divorce a vinculo or dissolution of marriage or death.

 In the case of Smt. Rambai Vs. Ramesh Kumar reported at
AIR 1996 M.P. 144 cited before me by learned Counsel for the
appellants, the meaning assigned to the word 'widow' in 'Words and
Phrases” Permanent Edition, Vol.45 page 141 has been approved by
the learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court. The learned
Judge has held that, “Where husband and wife are divorced a vinculo,
the wife after the husband's death is not his 'widow' ....” The relevant
observations of the learned Judge are to be found in paragraph 12 and
same are reproduced thus;
“.......In 'Words and Phrases” Permanent Edition, Vol.45
page 141 under the heading 'divorced wife', the word
'widow' means a woman who has lost her husband by
death and has no application to a divorced woman.
Where husband and wife are divorced a vinculo, the wife
after the husband's death is not his 'widow' and entitled
to dower..”
 In view of the above, the argument of learned Counsel for
the respondent that respondent is a widow and dependant of the
deceased cannot be accepted and argument of learned Counsel for the
appellants in this regard needs to be upheld. I, therefore, find that in
the instant case, for the purpose of enquiry under the Act, 1923, the
respondent cannot be said to be enjoying the status of widow of
deceased Kishore. Once we find that so far as the enquiry under the

Act, 1923 is concerned, the respondent was not the widow of deceased
Kishore, she would be out of the scope and ambit of the definition of
the term, 'dependent' as given in Section 2(1)(d) of the Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923, which describes, inter alia, a widow of a
deceased workman as his dependant.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 544 OF 2013

Smt. Varsha Kishore Tode Vs  Smt. Vandana Kishore Tode

Citation; 2014(4) MHLJ 206 Bom
CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED : JANUARY 09, 2014.

Print Page