IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.3268 of 2002 Between: Bhagavathula Prasad ..... APPELLANT(S) AND R. Bala Sundaram and another .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.3268 of 2002 ORDER: Appellant, who was working as a driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, filed M.V.O.P. No.33 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Kurnool, seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, alleging that on 09.07.1994, while he was on duty and driving the bus bearing No.AAZ-9465 and was proceeding from Nandyal to Yalluru, a lorry bearing No.AP-03-T-2790, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, being driven by its driver at full speed and in a rash and negligent manner came on wrong side of road from Allagadda side and dashed the bus resulting injuries to him and some of the passengers of the bus and the front portion of the bus also damaged. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the pleaded accident occurred and if so was it due to the fault of the driver of the lorry AP-03-T-2790 belonging to R.1? (2) Whether R.1’s lorry was insured with R.2 and whether that policy covers the risk of the petitioner? (3) Whether the petitioner is in principle entitled to compensation and if so to what quantum and what is the liability of R.1 and R.2? (4) To what relief? Additional Issue: Whether the claim petition is barred under the provisions of the E.S.I. Act? On behalf of appellant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence was adduced but a copy of policy was marked as Ex.B.1. Considering the material on record, though the Tribunal held issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the claimant and that claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.50,500/- from the respondents as per the finding on issue No.3, in view of its finding on additional issue that the claim petition is barred under Section 53 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as – ‘the Act’), dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition basing on the finding given on additional issue the present appeal is by the claimant. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the claim petition inasmuch as the claimant did not receive any benefit from the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 3. At this juncture, it is pertinent to look into some of the provisions of the Act. Section 53 of the Act reads as follows. “Bar against receiving or recovery of compensation or damages under any other law:-- An insured person or his dependants shall not be entitled to receive or recover, whether from the employer of the insured person or from any other person, any compensation or damages under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), or any other law for the time being in force or otherwise, in respect of an employment injury sustained by the insured person as an employee under this Act.” Section 61 of the Act reads as follows. “Bar of benefits under other enactments:-- When a person is entitled to any of the benefits provided by this Act, he shall not be entitled to receive any similar benefit admissible under the provisions of any other enactment.” 4. In paragraph 17 of its order, the Tribunal noted that the claimant in his cross-examination categorically admitted his being covered by the insurance under the Employees’ State Insurance Scheme provided by his employer. Section 53 of the Act disentitles an insured person or his dependants from receiving or recovering, whether from the employer of the insured person or from any other person, any compensation or damages under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, or any other law for the time being in force or otherwise, in respect of an employment injury sustained by the injured person as an employee under this Act. As per Section 61 of the Act when a person is entitled to any of the benefits provided by this Act, he is not entitled to receive any similar benefit admissible under the provisions of any other enactment. The Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, is enacted to provide for certain benefits to employees in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and to make provision for certain other matters in relation thereto. In view thereof, it can be safely held that the Tribunal rightly considered the decisions of the Apex Court in A.Trehan v. M/s.Associated Electrical Agencies[1] and Western India Plywood Limited v. P.Ashokan[2] in giving such a finding and there are no grounds to interfere with the said finding. The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 26th August 2010 CVRK [1] AIR 1996 SC 1990 [2] AIR 1997 SC 3883