IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1162 of 1989(O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 19th August, 2010 The Oriental Insurance Company ...Appellant Vs. Laxman Dass and others. ...Respondents Present : Mr.Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant None for the respondents. CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KANNAN 1. Whether Reporter of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? K.KANNAN,J.(Oral) 1. The Insurer Company is an appeal challenging the award on the ground that the person was a cleaner in the insured’s vehicle and the accident had taken by the negligent driving of the driver of the insured’s vehicle. The tribunal found that the insured’s vehicle had hit the stationary truck and provided for a compensation to the claimant at Rs.84200/- 2. The contention is that the scale of compensation that the Tribunal could have adopted was only possible under the workmen’s Compensation Act. Section 166 could be invoked for death or bodily injury arising out of an accident by the use of Motor Vehicle. The basis of claim under the Act still is the negligence of the person who cause the accident. In the claim at the instance of the deceased himself, it should have become possible to contend that driver who is also a tort feasor cannot make a claim under the Motor Vehicles FAO No. 1162 of 1989(O&M) -2- Act and at best could rest his claim only to the liability founded on the employer- workman relationship under the workmen’s compensation Act. 3. In my view, it would make a difference that the claim is made by yet another person, who is himself not a tort feasor. Section 147 of the present Act which contained similar provision under Section 92 provides for compulsory insurance for liability arising in such a situation to which the Workmen’s Compensation Act is applicable. This Section must be only understood as an Insurance Cover available under such a situation and should not be understood as even a scale of compensation against an insurer could only be in the manner determined under workmen’s compensation Act. If the claimant was not tort feasor and he was entitled to insurance cover and the accident had arisen by the use of the vehicle Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act gives the claimant an option to apply under the workmen’s compensation Act before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner or before the Tribunal under Section 166. If a claim under Section 166 is permissible, then the scale of compensation shall also be as per the provisions contained under the Motor Vehicles Act. So reasoned, the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal is just and there is no scope of making a reduction in the award in a case of person who has suffered amputation of his leg. It is indeed doubtful whether nature of work which he was doing, he could continue. The compensation is modest and does not require any intervention. It appears that the workman had filed an application before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, did not pursue the same, allowed it to be dismissed FAO No. 1162 of 1989(O&M) -3- for default and subsequently prosecuted the case before the Tribunal. It has been held in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Purshotam Rana AIR 1976 MP 122 that the dismissal of claim before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner for default would not bar a person from prosecuting the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. I am in total agreement with the proposition brought through the above decision. 4. The appeal is therefore dismissed. (K.KANNAN) August 19, 2010 Judge p.singh