FAO No.5807 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.5807 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision. 30 .07.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited having its Regional Office at Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Deputy Manager .........Appellant Versus Swaran Dass alias Swarna Ram and others .......Respondents Present: Mr. Vishal Chaudhary, Advocate for Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5. Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for respondent No.8. 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. 1. The case addresses the issue of maintainability of an action before the Motor Vehicles Act in a case where the claimants had already obtained benefit under ESI Act for the death of the person in the motor accident. It was brought out in evidence that the surviving member of the deceased-Hira Lal had been drawing the pension @ Rs.88.70 per day with effect from the date of his death under the ESI Scheme. The contention on behalf of the insurance company was that Section 53 of the ESI Act barred the action for compensation before any other enactment. The section reads thus:- FAO No.5807 of 2009 (O&M) -2- “53. Bar against receiving or recovery of compensation or damages under any other law. 1*[53. Bar against receiving or recovery of compensation or damages under any other law.-An insured person or his dependents 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.]” 2. This aspect has also been considered by several decisions of various Courts in Mangalamma Vs. Express Newspaper Limited AIR 1982 Mad 223; (1982) 95 Mad LW1, (1982) 1 MLJ 149 (DB), Ganjanan Dhan Mark Vs. ESI Corporation (1974) 2 Lab L.J.162 (Bom), Regional Director ESI Corporation Vs. Darmeshwaram Pillai 1975 Ker LT 708 (DB), Sadgunaben Amrutlal Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation 1981 Lab IC 1653 (Guj) (DB), L. Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Ranga Rao 1981 Lab IC 1563 (Karn), National Insurance Company Limited Vs. P. Saraswathi Mohan AIR 1982 Mad 371, V. Thangappan Vs. Tamil Nadu Industrial Insurance Corporation (1993) 1 ACC CC 352 (1992-2) 110 Mad LW 404. The object of this provision has been brought out as one of public policy that a claimant who has had the benefit for an injury sustained during employment that resulted in death cannot maintain a claim for FAO No.5807 of 2009 (O&M) -3- compensation for the very same cause of action under the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. The award of the Tribunal is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 30, 2010 Pankaj*