Judgments related to workmen compensation Act

 

JUDGMENT RELATED TO WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT

1.Receipt of compensation by claimant under WC Act,

without there being any application by claimant

under the WC Act whether claimant is at liberty

to file an application u/s 166 and/ or 163A of MV

Act? Held ; yes, there is no bar for claimant to

file an application u/s 163A of MV Act as he has

not made any application under WC Act

2004 ACJ 934 (SC), 2003 ACJ 1434 (P&H), 2011

ACJ 1786 (KAR),

Whether claimant filed in FORM after issuance of

notice by the commissioner – held that since

they did not approach the Commissioner for

compensation, claim petition under the M V Act

is maintainable. 2017

ACJ 1807(HP)

2 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 S. 147, 149, 166, 167,

173 Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 S. 3 appeal

against the order of High Court directing appellant to satisfy whole award motor accident case fatal third party risk involved liability of vehicle owner and insurer to be

decided applicability of Workmen's Compensation Act accident of truck driver died on the spot heirs of deceased contended that truck was 15 years old and was not in good condition and was not well maintained claim for compensation truck owner denied his fault on the ground that driver was  drunk at the time of the accident Tribunal dismissed claim petition holding fault of driver for the accident claimants preferred appeal before High Court. High Court observed that accident took place because the arm bolt of the truck broke and not due to the fault of driver awarded Rs. 2,10,000/with 10% interest as a compensation and directed appellant to satisfy

whole award appellant company defended itself on

the ground that as per S. 147 and 149 of the Motor

Vehicles Act is concerned, liability of the insurer

is restricted up to the limit provided by W.C. Act

insurer appellant preferred this leave petition whether

appellant insurance company is liable to pay the entire compensation to claimant or its liability is restricted to the limit prescribed in W.C. Act – held yes, further held that the insurance policy was for 'Act Liability' and so the

liability of appellant would not be unlimited but would be limited as per W.C. Act appellant directed to pay claim amount up to the extent prescribed in W.C. Act and owner of truck is directed to pay remaining claim amount

2005(6) SCC 172N.

I.C v/s Prembai Patel

3 Driver hit his truck against tree IC raised objection that its liability is restricted to liability under the W.C Act whether sustainable held – No Clause of policy cannot override statutory provisions of Section 167, which gives

option to claimant to opt any of the remedy provided under the Act

2012 ACJ 23 – 2006 ACJ 528 SC followed

4 Claim petition under M.V. Act after getting compensation under the W.C. Act whether maintainable held ; yes. Deceased died due to injuries sustained by chassis of the bus owned by the corporation of which deceased was the employee as deceased died in motor accident – claim petition under M.V. Act also, maintainable

2012 ACJ 2392003

ACJ 1759 (Guj) followed

5 Doctrine of election whether claimant can claim

compensation u/s 168 of the Act when he has already

received some amount under the WC Act? Held; No.

2012 ACJ 2069 – SC judgment followed.

6 W.C. Act Employer suo motu paid compensation to

the L.R of deceased u/s 8 of the W.C. Act. claim

petition preferred earlier by the L.R. Of deceased whether

I.C. Can claim that amount paid under the W.C. Act may be deducted from the amount of compensation which may be awarded u/s 166 & 168 of M.V. Act? Held; No.

Since compensation is paid u/s 8 of the W.C. Act, Section 8 and L.R. Of deceased had not preferred any application u/s 10 of the W.C. Act, argument of I.C. Is turned down.

2013 ACJ 709.

7 Whether Tribunal can award compensation on the

basis of provisions contained under the W.C. Act? Held

No.

2012 ACJ 2251 (Mad)

8 I.C is liable to pay entire amount of compensation

and not only under Liability of W.C. Act.

2013 ACJ 2205 (Del).

9 Choice of forum – IC deposited compensation with

commissioner whether in such situation claimants

are precluded from making any claim petition under

the MV Act? Held; No.

2015 ACJ 1429 (P&H)

10 – Objection by IC that claimant have already

preferred claim petition under the WC Act, it is

not open for the claimant to prefer a claim

petition under the MV Act – Whether sustainable? Held; No. Out of the total awarded amount of compensation in the MACP, amount awarded under the WC has to be deducted.

2017 ACJ 2129 (Kar) – 2013 ACJ 709(SC) – OI Com v/s

Dyamavva followed and 2006 ACJ 528 (SC) NI Com. V/s

Mastan, considered.