1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 06.01.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( Auxi), Jamnagar in Claim Case No. 290 of 196 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim case.
2.0 One Sunilbhai who was serving as the Conductor in the S.T. Corporation was on duty in the S.T. Bus No. GRU 7640 of Jamnagar to Mangrol on 28.09.1988. When the bus was going towards Bhanvad, there was flood in the river. The driver of the bus took risk and drove the bus in the water of river and due to the flow of water, the said bus fell down in the pit and due to this situation, the Sunilbhai sunk in the water and died due to this accident. The wife and legal heirs of the deceased preferred the aforesaid claim case before the Tribunal which came to be dismissed. Hence, this appeal.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Harivadan M. Modi versus Chandrasinh reported in 1988 ACJ p. 311 in which it has been held that the claimants are entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
4.0 Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that wife of the deceased, viz., Vanitaben Sunilbhai was appointed on compassionate ground in Administrative Branch, Departmental Office, Rajkot on 01.05.1989 and she was drawing salary of Rs. 20, 000/ per month. He further submitted that the appellants are entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
5.0 Heard learned advocate for the appellant at length and perused the documents on record.
6.0 The deceased Sunilbhai Joshi was discharging his duties as Conductor under the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. It is the admitted fact that the G.S.R.T.C. had deposited an amount of Rs.76801/ with the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation at Junagadh. The widow of the deceased had received this amount soon after the accident.
7.0 On a query raised by this Court, the learned advocate for the appellant has produced the salary slip of wife of the deceased who was appointed on compassionate ground, her appointment order and also order below the Memorandum of Agreement Exh. 1 in Workman Compensation Case No. 2 of 1989. The S.T. Corporation suo motu has deposited Rs.76,801/ before the Commissioner for Workman Compensation at Junagadh. The said Commissioner has registered the Workman Compensation Case No. 2 of 1989 and issued notice to the appellants as the heirs of the deceased to receive the deposited amount of compensation. Pursuant thereto, there was an agreement between the appellants and parents of the deceased with regard to claim. Subsequently, they have made a compromise by a pursis Exh. 10 by which they have accepted that they have no dispute regarding adequacy of the compensation tendered by the employer. The Commissioner had paid the amount to the heirs of the deceased as per the agreement. The order was passed by the Commissioner with the consent of the parties and the appellants have accepted the amount under the Workman Compensation Act. Over and above, the respondentCorporation has also passed order of compassionate appointment of wife of the deceased on 01.05.1989 posting her in the Administration Branch, Departmental Office, Rajkot. The wife of the deceased is drawing salary of Rs. 20,000/ per month as per the pay slip produced by the learned advocate for the appellant.
8.0 Furthermore, the appellants inspite of the fact that they have received the amount of compensation under the provision of Workmen Compensation Act, have preferred claim petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act almost after 7 years from the date of the order passed below W.C. No. 2 of 1989. The claimants were satisfied with the amount of compensation under the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act. The claimants by their conduct of not disputing adequacy of the compensation paid under the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act and not preferring claim under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act within a reasonable time after the accident are not entitled to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicels Act.
9.0 Since the appellants have already received compensation under the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act they cannot claim compensation under the other statute. Hence, the decision which was relied upon by the learned advocate for the claimants will not apply in the present case. The Corporation being a public sector should not be under the liability of additional compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
10.0 Thus, the appellants have failed to establish their case before the Tribunal. Even before this Court the appellants could not persuade this court to take a different view of the matter. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal.
11.0 In the premises aforesaid I do not find any merits in the appeal.
The same is therefore dismissed.
niru* (K.S.JHAVERI, J.)