Ramachandran Nair,J. The appellant is the second respondent in O.P(MV) No.
396/11 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala.
2. The question is whether the application for compensation filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala is maintainable or not, since according to the appellant the proper remedy is to approach the Workmen's Compensation Commission.
3. We have gone through the award passed by the Tribunal. It is a case were the accident occurred on 06.02.2011, when the first respondent, who is a driver by profession was driving KL-05/AB-8218 through Medical College-Gandhinagar public road. He was an employee under the second respondent before this Court. According to the case pleaded before the tribunal, when the car reached near the Medical College, another vehicle came from the opposite direction without reducing (dimming) the light and consequently he lost sight of the road and car hit an electric post. He sustained injuries. The petitioner was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam and was then shifted to the Amrita Hospital, Ernakulam. The total compensation claimed was Rs.6,00,000/-, and Rs.2,15,720 has been awarded.
4. The claimant has not filed any appeal challenging the quantum. Therefore, the only question is whether the application for compensation filed before the Tribunal was maintainable or not.
5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted before us that no other vehicle was involved, and therefore, the proper forum for claiming the compensation is the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner alone. Learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act gives an option to the applicant, who is involved in a motor vehicle accident to choose any of the two forums. It is not a case where any application was filed before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner or the employer had deposited any compensation before the said Commissioner. It is therefore submitted that, law being settled, the application for compensation is maintainable before the Tribunal. He also relied upon the decision reported in Sukro Munda v. National Insurance Co.Ltd.,2012(3)KLT SN 83.
6. By a recent judgment in M.A.C.A No. 1585/2013 dated 18.11.2014, we have addressed a similar question. We have analyzed the legal position in the light of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in the light of the various decisions of this Court and the Apex Court. The accident in this case is clearly by involvement of a motor vehicle. In such a circumstance, the party has got two remedies, either to approach the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner or the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. That was the reason when he has exercised the option under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act as permitted by law. The application for compensation is clearly maintainable. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the award.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the policy is issued with a limit, namely for amount payable as per the schedule provided under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and the remaining liability will have to borne by the owner.
We therefore, upheld the award and dismiss the appeal. No costs.
Sd/-T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge.
lsn Sd/-P.V.ASHA, Judge.