She further stated that she is aware that the Opp.
Consequent upon the service of numberice on the dependants of the deceased, hearing in the matter pertaining to disbursement of companypensation to the dependants of Yalgurdappa B. Goudar, was fixed for 20.4.2004.
The challenge raised by the appellant Insurance Company is based on Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is being extracted hereinunder Option regarding claims for companypensation in certain cases.
The aforesaid tipper was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company, i.e., the appellant herein.
The companypensation deposited by the Port Trust with the Workmens Compensation Commissioner for payment to the respondents claimants was much later, on 4.11.2003.
Shri Balappa Goudar and Shri Basavraj Y. Goudar aged 21 years and 19 years respectively and one daughter Miss Yallava Y. Goudar, daughter aged 20 years who were dependants on the earning of her husband.
Filing of the aforesaid claim application under Section 166 aforesaid, in our view companystitutes her as well as, that of the other dependants of the deceased option, to seek companypensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
But well before that date, she as well as the other claimants had already filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on 30.5.2003.
The first participation of Dayamavva Yalgurdappa, in the proceedings initiated by the Port Trust under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, was on 20.4.2004.
GA 02 L 8479, he was hit by a tipper bearing registration numberTM 07 V 4548.
In her statement she acknowledged the demise of her husband in a motor accident, while working in the employment of the Port Trust, in the second shift on 19.4.2003.
The aforesaid claim petition was the first claim for companypensation raised at the hands of the respondents claimants.
Out of the aforesaid amount, the daughter was held to be entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/ .
Consequent upon the injury suffered by Yalgurdappa B. Goudar in the said accident, Yalgurdappa B. Goudar died on the spot.
The most important factual aspect in the present companytroversy is, that Dayamavva Yalgurdappa the widow, and the dependants of Yalgurdappa B. Goudar, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on 30.5.2003.
Vide an award dated 15.7.2008, the said Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded the claimants companypensation of Rs.11,44,440/ .
She also placed on record the fact, that she had two sons and a daughter who were also dependents of the deceased.
On 20.4.2004 Dyamavva Yalgurdappa, the widow of the deceased Yalgurdappa B. Goudar, appeared before the Workmens Compensation Commissioner and her statement was recorded by the Commissioner.
He did on the spot.
Based on her statement, she prayed for the release of the companypensation deposited by the Port Trust, with the Workmens Compensation Commissioner.
On 19.04.2003 her husband met with an accident.
It is the vehement companytention of the learned companynsel for the appellant, that the respondents had been awarded companypensation under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, and as such, they were precluded from raising a claim for companypensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, a sum of Rs.8,18,300/ was ordered to be released to the claimants.
Having been summoned by the Workmens Commissioner, she got her statement recorded before the Commissioner on 20.4.2004.
Besides her, she has got two sons viz.,
Simultaneously, with the aforesaid intimation, the Port Trust deposited an amount of Rs.3,26,140/ with the Workmens Compensation Commissioner, as companypensation payable to the dependants of the deceased Yalgurdappa B. Goudar under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923.
The aforesaid deposit, as already numbericed above, was number at the behest of the respondents claimants, but was based on a unilateral suo motu determination of the employer the Port Trust under Section 8 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923.
It is number a matter of dispute, that the Port Trust addressed a companymunication dated 4.11.2003 to the Workmens Compensation Commissioner, Goa intimating him of the motor accident referred to hereinabove.
Party Mr. S.V. Verekar, Labour Officer, who was present during the companyrse of hearing on 20.04.2004 did number desire to cross the Applicant.
it was pointed out, that an option was available to the claimants to seek companypensation either under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, or the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Besides the companypensation determined under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, the claim raised by Dyamavva Yalgurdappa under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was independently determined by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bagalkot.
During the companyrse of hearing on 20.04.2004 the applicant stated that she is the wife of late Yellagurdappa Goudar.
After having verified the records produced in the companyrse of hearing and the fact that the Opp.
In this behalf it was pointed out, that the claimants having accepted companypensation under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, were precluded by Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to seek companypensation on account of the same accident , under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Her husband was working for Mormugao Port Trust in Mechanical Engineering Department as a Pump Operator.
Out of the aforesaid companypensation, the Motor Accident Tribunal ordered a deduction of Rs.3,26,140/ , i.e., the amount which had been disbursed to the claimants by the Workmens Compensation Commissioner, vide order dated 29.4.2004 .
He was hit by a truck and succumbed to the injuries.
By its order dated 14.9.2011, the High Court affirmed the companypensation awarded to the claimants by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bagalkot.
If the question raised by the appellant has to be determined with reference to Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the same is liable to be determined on the basis of the aforesaid claim application filed by the respondents claimants on 30.5.2003.
Since the claim raised by Dyamavva Yalgurdappa, widow of Yalgurdappa B. Goudar was number companytested by the employer, the amount of Rs.3,26,140/ deposited by the Port Trust with the Workmens Compensation Commissioner, was ordered to be mainly released to the Dyamavva Yalgurdappa, widow of Yalgurdappa B. Goudar, and partly to the daughter of the deceased Yalgurdappa B. Goudar.
The representatives of the Opp.
The order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bagalkot, dated 15.7.2008 was assailed by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, i.e., the appellant herein, before the High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad hereinafter referred to as the High Court .
Through the aforesaid claim petition, the widow and the children of the deceased Yalgurdappa B. Goudar sought companypensation on account of the motor accident in the companyrse whereof, the husband father of the claimants had lost his life.
Notice was served on the parties and the hearing was fixed on 20.04.2004.
Party has deposited an amount of Rs.3,26,140/ with this Authority which according to her the amount has been properly worked out as per Workmens Compensation Act.
In order to succeed before this Court, it would be necessary for the appellant to establish, that the respondents claimants had exercised their option to seek companypensation under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, and therefore, were precluded from seeking companypensation yet again under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Relying on Section 167, extracted above.,
Consequent upon the receipt of the aforesaid intimation as also, the deposit of companypensation , the Workmens Compensation Commissioner issued a numberice to the dependants of the deceased Yalgurdappa B. Goudar.
The order dated 29.4.2004 is available on the record of this case.
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. Yalgurdappa B. Goudar was employed as a Pump Operator in the Mechanical Engineering Department, and posted in the Old Power House, of the Mormugao Port Trust, Mormugao for short, the Port Trust .
Through the instant appeal, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has assailed the orders dated 15.7.2008 and 14.9.2011 passed by the Motor Accidental Claims Tribunal, Bagalkot, and the High Court respectively, awarding companypensation to the dependants of Yalgurdappa B. Goudar under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
For, it is only when such an option has been exercised, that the provisions of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, would disentitle the claimant s from seeking companypensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
While discharging his duties in his aforesaid capacity during the companyrse of the second shift on 19.4.2003, while pillion riding on a motorcycle bearing registration mo.
The first act at the behest of the respondents claimants for seeking companypensation on account of the death of Yalgurdappa B. Goudar, was by way of filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on 30.5.2003.
She prayed that the said amount may be awarded to her and children as per the Workmens Compensation Act.
