FAO No.2947 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2947 of 2002 Date of Decision. 07.07.2010 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney .........Appellant Versus Dilbag Singh s/o Sh. Dharam Pal Singh, aged 25 years, R/o village Hajewana, Tehsil & District Kaithal and others .......Respondents Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters 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 insurance company is in appeal contending that the driver-workman, who was responsible for a motor accident can have no basis for a claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The contention is that he was a tort feasor himself and therefore, the liability of an employer cannot be made. In my view, the contention is correct and no award could have been passed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Though the case could not have been decided under the Motor Vehicles Act and the appropriate remedy would have been only to refer the party for action under the Workmen's Compensation Act, at this length of time after 8 years, I do not want to relegate FAO No.2947 of 2002 -2- the party for an independent action. Already the case had been filed after enormous delay for an accident that had taken place in the year 1993 and the claim was made after seven years. It has been brought out in evidence through the examination of owner of the vehicle that he had employed him and therefore, the status of the driver as a workman cannot be denied. The injury has left him with a serious fracture of the spinal cord and paraplegia. If the salary was Rs.3000/- and the extent of loss of earning capacity were to be reckoned as 40%, which is the value that could arise by the fact that the Tribunal has taken the loss of earning to be Rs.1200/-, then by applying the relevant factor as provided under Schedule II of the Act, the amount of compensation shall be 60/100x3000x216.91x40/100=Rs.1,56,175/-. 3. The award of the Tribunal is set aside but there shall be a decree against the insurer for the above amount. This order is passed by this Court as an appellate authority under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act and treating the petition filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as though it had been filed under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I make it clear that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal itself will not have a power to treat a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act as a petition under the Motor Vehciles Act for the respective authorities namely the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are persona designata consituted through respective notification under the Acts. What Tribunal cuold have done is still possible for this Court sitting as an FAO No.2947 of 2002 -3- appellate authority. 4. The award is, therefore, modified in the above circumstances and the insurer is made liable to the above said amount. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 07, 2010 Pankaj*