Workmen Compensation Act - Case Laws

Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 aggrieved by the award of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur dtd.31.3.2008 in claim Case No.11/2006. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the husband of the respondent No.1 Smt. Badami, namely, Pappu Ram while driving Truck No. RJ-19/1G-3189 coming from Mumbai to Jodhpur in the night between 29.7.2003 and 30.7.2003, collided with Trailer No. HR-55-0707 and in the said accident Pappu Ram lost his life. The wife of the said deceased Pappu Ram, namely, Smt. Bidami Bai and his children Mamta, Rekha and Munna initially filed claim case No.103/2005 on 16.5.2005 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur and the said claim was awarded on 30.11.2005 and a sum of Rs.4,60,333/- was paid to the claimants for the said death, in January, 2006. Thereafter somewhere in June, 2006, it appears that the same claimants filed present claim before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner against the employer and owner of the Truck being driven on the date of accident by Pappu Ram, namely, Truck
Insurance Company has preferred this appeal before this Court. 4. Mr. D.S. Nimla, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that in view of bar under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also Section 3(5) of the Workmen Compensation Act, the claimants - legal representatives of deceased Pappu could not claim double benefit under both the enactments and therefore, the subsequent claim under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 was liable to be rejected and the appellant - insurance company cannot be made to pay said compensation. He also urged that claim itself was time barred having been filed after a delay of 3 years and also there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver Pappu Ram himself and thus, the claim under the MACT case having already been paid by the same insurance company, the award under theWorkmen Compensation Act, 1923 deserves to