1 fa591/94 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 591 OF 1994 Yuvraj s/o Shiva Jawale, R/o. Bambarud Raniche, Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon. ...APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Abhiman s/o Bhivsan Badgujar, R/o.Bambarud Raniche, Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon. 2. Govinda s/o Bhivsan Badgujar, R/o.Bambarud Raniche, Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon. 3. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS ... Smt. Sangit, Advocate holding for Shri. V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate for appellant. Shri. R.M. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. ... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 3RD DECEMBER, 2010 2 fa591/94 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. 2. The appellant - original applicant filed appeal against the order dated 02-02-1994 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Jalgaon in the application filed by the applicant for the amount of Rs.12,000/- under 'No Fault Liability'. The said application was dismissed by the learned Commissioner on the ground that there was no provision under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 as in Motor Vehicles Act under Section 140 for 'No Fault Liability' and also on merits. A FEW FACTS OF THE MATTER ARE AS UNDER : 3. On 07-07-1991 at about 4-00 p.m. the appellant met with an accident when he was in the 3 fa591/94 employment of respondent No.1 on his Tractor No. MH-19/B-1426 with its Trolley No. MH-19/2328. He sustained the injuries and got permanent disability. During the course of the employment, he was earning sum of Rs.600/- per month towards the wages. He further stated that he had undergone hospitalisation and taken medical treatment from 08-07-1991 to 11-07-1991 and again for medical check up on 29-10-1991. He incurred about Rs.7000/- to 8000/- on account of medicines purchased from open market for treatment. Thereafter, he called upon respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to make payment of compensation. They failed and neglected to do so. Therefore, he filed claim petition bearing W.C.A. No.86 of 1992 before the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on 15-10-1992 and claimed a sum of Rs.16,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of application till realisation. 4. In the said claim petition, the applicant preferred application dated 29-08-1992 under 'No 4 fa591/94 Fault Liability' for payment of Rs.12,000/-. 5. In the said application, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statement and opposed the same. The learned Commissioner by the impugned order dated 02-02-1994 application at Exhibit-U-2 rejected. Therefore, the appellant preferred appeal. 6. Heard both the sides at length. 7. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that there is no provision under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for making application for amount under 'No Fault Liability'. He submits that in Motor Vehicles Act, there is specific provision under Section 140 for making application for 'No Fault Liability'. There is no such provision in the Workmen's Compensation Act and therefore, the learned Commissioner rightly rejected the appellant's application at Exhibit-U-2. 5 fa591/94 8. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 relied on the judgment of this Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nirmalabai Rajaram Gosavi & Ors. reported in 2009(1) Bom.C.R. 305. In that judgment, this High Court held that there is no provision under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for awarding under 'No Fault Liability'. This Court further held that there is no power vesting in Commissioner to pass interim order directing the opponent in claim petition to pay interim or ad interim compensation to the victim. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that present case is fully covered by the judgment New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nirmalabai Rajaram Gosavi & Ors. (supra). He submits that as the present case is covered by the judgment (supra), the appeal is liable to be dismissed with costs. 6 fa591/94 9. I have gone through the Record and Proceedings of the present case. The question for consideration in this appeal is : Whether the appellant - original claimant is entitled to file application for payment of 'No Fault Liability' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 10. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, there is specific provision under Section 140 for claiming compensation under 'No Fault Liability'. Such provision does not exist in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for provisional compensation. Section 4-A makes it clear that in cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he can make provisional payment based on the event of liability which he accepts. 11. It is crystal from the bare reading of Section 4-A that the Commissioner can pass order 7 fa591/94 directing the employer to make provisional payment if employer accepts part of the claim. Besides this, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has not pointed out any other provision in the Act of 1923 for claiming payment under 'No Fault Liability'. In any case, the judgment cited by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Nirmalabai Rajaram Gosavi and others (supra) squarely covered the issue arising in this appeal. In that case, High Court held that for want of provision for payment of 'No Fault Liability' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the Commissioner have no power to pass any order to that effect. Para-8 of that judgment reads thus : "8. Perusal of the said Act of 1923 shows that there is no power conferred on the Commissioner to pass such an interim direction. Moreover, section 23 of the said Act of 1923 makes it abundantly clear 8 fa591/94 that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 will apply only for the purpose of taking evidence on oath, for enforcing attendance of the witnesses and compelling production of documents and material objects. In any event, there is no power vesting in the Commissioner to pass an interim order directing the opponents in a claim petition to pay interim or ad hoc compensation." 12. As the issue squarely covered by the reported judgment of this Court, I do not find any substance in the present appeal and same is dismissed. Considering the facts of the present case, no order as to costs. 13. As the claim petition of the appellant is pending before the Commissioner since 1992 and same is stayed as this Court called Record and Proceedings, I direct the learned Commissioner to dispose the claim petition W.C.A. No. 86 of 1992 as early as possible but in any case, within six 9 fa591/94 months from the receipt of Record and Proceedings from this Court. 14. Registry is directed to send the Record and Proceedings immediately to the trial Court. sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] sut/DEC10/fa591.94