Skip to content


B. Prabhakar and anr. Vs. Bachima - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. First Appeal No. 782 of 1980
Judge
Reported inI(1985)ACC230; AIR1984Kant225
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 110AA; Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Sections 3(5)
AppellantB. Prabhakar and anr.
RespondentBachima
Appellant AdvocateB.V. Acharya, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateA.J. Gunjal, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....if the object was to strictly go by merit, it was not necessary to either seek minority status and claim protection or hold separate common entrance test claiming as institutions belonging to religious or linguistic minorities. neither the consensual agreement nor the seat matrix issued could come in the way of the respondent-colleges to earmark certain number of seats to telugu minority in karnataka. when a publication is issued at the time of counselling, informing the candidates that students belonging to linguistic minorities would get first preference and if that process is not followed, the aggrieved students are entitled to approach the high court and contend that the process followed is illegal and non-transparent. the whole problem is cropped up on account of the wrong process..........for workmen's compensation act under the same cause of action is not tenable under s. 110aa of the motor vehicles act read with s. 3(5) of the workmen's compensation act.3. section 110-aa of the motor vehicles act reads:'notwithstanding anything contained in the workmen's compensation. act, 1923, 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, the person entitled to compensation may claim such compensation under either of those acts but not under both.'4. analysing the section, it becomes clear that before an application could be entertained by the accidents claims . tribunal under s. 110 of the motor vehicles act, the cause of action should be such as could be entertained by the.....
Judgment:

Sabahit, J.

1. This appeal by the employer and the insurer is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 14-4-1980 made by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Chikmagalur, in KOC/WEA/4/79-80 on his file directing the employer to pay a sum of Rs. 21,00or/towards compensation to the claimant under the Workman' s Compensation Act.

2. The only point that is raised before us in this appeal is that the claimant had filed a petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chickmagalur, for compensation in Miscellaneous (MVC) Case No. 16 of 1978 and therein the claim was dismissed because the deceased driver himself was responsible for causing the accident. Hence, the learned Counsel submitted before us that the petition made again before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Act under the same cause of action is not tenable under S. 110AA of the Motor Vehicles Act read with S. 3(5) of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

3. Section 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act reads:

'Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation. Act, 1923, 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, the person entitled to Compensation may claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both.'

4. Analysing the Section, it becomes clear that before an application could be entertained by the Accidents Claims . Tribunal under S. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the cause of action should be such as could be entertained by the Claims Tribunal It must give rise to a claim for compensation under S. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In other words, the accident must have occurred due to actionable negligence of the owner or the driver of the vehicle, causing injury or death of third party. When the accident. occurred due to actionable negligence of the deceased himself being the driver, no claim by his legal representatives can be entertained by the Claims Tribunal under S. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act That, being so S. 110-AA of the Act would not come into play at all. For, the Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain such an application and it has, therefore, rejected the same.(Vide: Jayamma v. S.Govindaswamy; (1982) 1 Kant LJ 375:(1982.Lab I.C. 1666).

5. Section 3(5) of the Workmen's Compensation Act would not also be an embargo for making an application before the Workmen7s Compensation Act. The said Section reads:

'Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to confer the right to compensation by a workman in respect of any injury if he has instituted in a Civil Court a suit for damages in respect o the injury against an employer or any o her person.'

6. No such suit was instituted before the Civil Court claiming damages. Hence, S. 3(5) of the Act also would be no bar for entertaining a petition under the ,Workmen' s Compensation Act.

7. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants further argued that penalty should not have been levied. We find that the penalty has been levied in accordance with law as there was delay in depositing the amount of compensation before the Commissioner.

8. Hence, there is no substance in this appeal. The appeal fails as devoid of merits and is dismissed.

No costs of this appeal.

9. Appeal dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //