1. This appeal involves consideration of important question of law relating to interpretation and application of Section 110AA of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
2. This is an appeal by the original applicants against an order dated 8th January, 1986 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in Workmen's Compensation Case No. (LCS) 1 of 1980. By the impugned order, the learned Commissioner dismissed the above referred application as not maintainable in law byinvoking Section 110AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
3. Section 110AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 reads as under:--
'110AA. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of (923), where the death of or bodily injury to any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) the person entitled to compensation (may, without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter VII-A claim such compensation) under either of those Acts but not under both'.
4. One Arjun Mahadeo Salunkhe died as a result of an accident which took place on 31st March, 1980. At the time of the accident the deceased was in the employment of respondent No. 1 On 20th October, 1993, Smt. Neelabai Mahadeo Salunkhe (i.e. the mother of the deceased) on behalf of herself and two of the brothers of the deceased by name Kumar Mahadev Salunkhe and Babasaheb Salunkhe made a claim for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Sangli, numbered as Motor Accident Claim No. 35 of 1980. By the application made under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the said applicants claimed compensation of Rs. 60,000/ - in view of death of the deceased Arjun Mahadeo caused as a result of the tractor accident which took place on 31st March, 1980. Shri Laxmanrao A. Chavan, Shri Shamrao Tatoba Pawar, the New India Insurance Company Ltd. and The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. were impleaded as party respondents in the said application. At the trial of the said application filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangli, various issues were framed. The first two issues framed at the hearing of the said application are reproduced hereinafter.
'1. Whether the application prove that the accident which resulted in the death of Arjun Mahadeo Salunkhe was caused due to rash and negligent driving of tractor No. MTK-9130 by opponent No. 1 (i.e. Laxamanrao A.Chavan) on the noon of 31-3-1980 ?'
'2. Whether Opponent No. 2, owner of the tractor, proves that the said Arjun Mahadeo Salunkhe himself driving the tractor at the time of the accident ?'
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal answered issue No. 1 in the negative and issue No. 2 in the affirmative. In para 14 of its judgment, the Tribunal observed that the burden of proof that the deceased had died due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by some other person i.e. other than the deceased, was on the applicants themselves. The Tribunal further observed that the applicants had not led any evidence to discharge their burden. The Tribunal held that the deceased himself might be driving the tractor as shown in the police panchanama relating to the above referred accident. In the result, the Tribunal dismissed the said application for compensation made by the applications (appellants herein) under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
5. In the above referred Workmen's Compensation Case (LCS) No. 1 of 1980, the appellants are claiming compensation from one or the other respondents under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The question before the learned Commissioner was as to whether the said claim was barred under Section 110AA of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in view of the appellants having already filed the above referred claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangli vide Motor Accident Claim No. 35 of 1980 and the said claim having been dismissed by the Tribunal.
6. Section 110AA was inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 by Amending Act 56 of 1969. The said section is applicable only where the death or bodily injury caused to a person gives rise to a Valid claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as well as a claim for compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The said section prohibits the applicants from making double recovery of compensation by invoking both the Acts. If the application for compensation made before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is rejected on theground that the deceased himself was negligently driving the tractor in question it can hardly be said that the death of the deceased gave rise to a valid claim for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. If the claim for compensation made under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 could not be entertained by the Claims Tribunal for want of valid cause of action or for want of proof in respect of negligence of the driver causing the accident as alleged, Section 110AA of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 can never be applied so as to bar the claim for compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Even if the deceased was himself negligently driving the tractor leading to the accident in question, the claim for compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 may be still maintainable against the employer concerned or against the insurance company if the deceased died as a result of an accident which took place during the course of employment of the deceased. Section 3 of Workmen's Compensation Act provides for statutory liability of the employer to pay compensation to the workman or his dependents if the death or personal injury is caused by accident arising out of and in the course of employment of the workman concerned. The criteria to be applied for determination of an application for compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is some what different than the criteria to be applied for determination of a claim for compensation under Section 110A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
7. I shall now refer to a Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dealing with the same question which has arisen before this Court in this appeal. In B. Prabhakar v. Smt. Bachima, : AIR1984Kant225 , the Karnataka Hign Court analysed the provisions of law contained in Section 110A as well as Section 110AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Court held that no claim for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 could be entertained by the Claims Tribunal unless the accident had occurred due to actionable negligence of the owner or the driver of the vehicle causing injury or death of third party. The Court held that when the accident occurred due toactionable negligence of the deceased himself being the driver, no claim by his legal representatives could be entertained by the Claims Tribunal under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court held that in such a case Section 110AA of the Act would not be attracted and the claim made by the dependents of the deceased before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation would be maintainable. This authority is directly on the point which has arisen for consideration of this Court in this appeal. Shri G. R. Rege, the learned counsel for the appellants has rightly relied upon the ratio of this decision in support of his submission that the impugned order is incorrect and the application made by the appellants for compensation invoking Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was maintainable in law and that the said application was not barred by Section 110AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. As against this, Shri Apte, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has invited attention of the Court to the judgment of single Judge of this Court in the case of Anthony Lobo v. C. M. Merchand 1979 Lab IC 61. In this case, Vaidya, J. speaking for the Court held that the claim made by the applicants before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was barred under Section 110AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for the circumstances set out in the said judgment. In this case, the dependents of the deceased had already made a claim for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the compensation was already awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants concerned. This case is thus clearly distinguishable. In our case, no compensation was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the question of double recovery does not arise. I am in respectful agreement with the ratio of the above referred judgment of Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka in the case reported in : AIR1984Kant225 .
8. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that Motor Accident Claim No. 35 of 1980 was not rejected for lack of jurisdiction but was rejected on merits. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 hassubmitted that the bar created by Section 110AA of the above referred Act was thus t clearly attracted. The language of Section 110AA of the Act is clear and specific on this aspect. In this case, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the death of the deceased Arjun Mahadeo did not give rise to a claim for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as the deceased was himself negligently driving the tractor. In substance, the Tribunal held that the appellants had no cause of action for making the claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In view of the above, I have no hesitation in rejecting this submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
9. The learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation held that the party had a choice to make a claim before either of the two forums and once the claim was before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, no claim could be made for compensation in respect of the same accident invoking Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The proposition formulated by trial Court is too wide and is incorrect. In my opinion, the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was clearly in error. In the first instance it is required to be decided as to whether the death or bodily injury in question gave rise to a claim for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as well as a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The dependents of the deceased may not be aware about the cause for the death of the deceased and may not be able to prove that the deceased had died as a result of an accident which occurred due to actionable negligence of the owner or the driver concerned. In such a situation it shall have to be held that the remedy of filing a claim for compensation under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was misconceived by the dependents of the deceased and the applicants could not lawfully make a claim for compensation under Section 110A of the Act. In such a case, neither Section 110A of the Act is attracted nor Section 110AA can be invoked.
10. In the result the appeal is allowed. The finding recorded by the Commissionerfor Workmen's Compensation to the effect that the application made by the claimants under Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 was not maintainable in law and is set aside.
11. The application is held to be maintainable. The proceedings are remanded to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for deciding the remaining issues on merits and in accordance with law. Since this is an old matter, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation should endeavour to dispose of the above referred application on merits within six months from today as far as possible.
12. The Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side, is directed to return the record to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation immediately and not later than one month from today along with an ordinary copy of the order of this Court duly authenticated by the Shirstedar of this Court.
13. Issue of certified copy expedited.
Order accordingly.