Case: Inspector General of Police Vs. Sayed Adam

( 1 ) ONE Sayed Adam filed an application before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Goa, claiming compensation from theof Police, his employer, on the ground of disability sustained by him due to the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. He contended that on June 4, 1979, while he was employed as a driver in Goa Police he met with an accident while he was proceeding to Valpoi from Pale on official duty. He suffered injuries on his right cheek with a fracture and permanent loss of the right eye. He also suffered injuries to the left rib, left thumb and left hand. He also made requests for compensation to the Office of theof Police on February 11, 1980, but there was no2 ) THE application was resisted on behalf of theof Police. It was denied that the accident took place in the course and was arising out of the employment. The evidence recorded showed that while the applicant was on duty driving the jeep No.accompanied by police escort, the jeep collided with a truck coming from the opposite direction resulting in the accident in which the applicant received several injuries. On the basis of the evidence on record the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation determined an amount of Rs. 12,096 as the compensation payable to the applicant. This decision was rendered on September 8,3 ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, theof Police, Goa, preferred First Appeal No. 1 of 1989. The learned single judge by his judgment and decree dated April 20, 1990, was pleased to dismiss the said appeal with costs. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned single judge dismissing the first appeal, theof Police, Goa, has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.( 4 ) BEFORE the learned single judge, it appears that the point was raised as to the maintainability of the application before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation on the basis of interpretation of Sectionof the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, on the ground that the applicant had sought his remedy by making a claim before the Accidents Claims Tribunal at Panaji and had obtained an amount of Rs. 50,000 as compensation from the Insurance Company which had insured the owner of the truck and the truck with which the jeep driven by the applicant, collided at the relevant time.

Reasoning: ( 13 ) WITH great respect we find ourselves unable to agree with the aforesaid decision rendered by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. In our opinion from the reading of the Section, it is clear that it is only in the cases were the tortfeasor and the employer happens to be one and the same person that the workman or the claimant would have the choice and it is only in such a situation that the workman or the claimant has to exercise his option, namely, he can either proceed against his employer before the Accidents Claims Tribunal or he can proceed against the employer under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act. So far as a tortfeasor other than the employer is concerned it is clear that the workman can never proceed against such a tortfeasor under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act. We see absolutely no logic or reason to bar the remedy of the claimant or the workman against his employer or the tortfeasor when in the facts and circumstances of the case he could proceed against the tortfeasor only under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and against the employer only under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation14 ) IN view of the aforesaid, we are in complete agreement with the views of the learned judge in the judgment and the order impugned before us.