2007 (2) TMI 702 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. Relationship of employer and employee between husband and wife.
3. Applicability of insurance provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

Summary:

1. Interpretation of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
The Supreme Court considered the interpretation of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (1988 Act) in relation to claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (1923 Act). The Court noted that Section 167 provides an option to the claimant to file for compensation either under the 1988 Act or the 1923 Act, but not both. The doctrine of election, which is a branch of the rule of estoppel, precludes a claimant from seeking remedies under both Acts for the same relief.

2. Relationship of Employer and Employee Between Husband and Wife:
The Court examined whether a husband could be considered a "workman" under his wife in the absence of a specific contract. It was held that it is absurd to suggest that the husband would be a "workman" of his wife without any specific contract. The Court found that the claimants concocted the story of the husband and wife living separately to lay a claim against the insurer. The claim was deemed not bona fide as no documentary proof of employment was produced, and no independent witnesses were examined.

3. Applicability of Insurance Provisions Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to Claims Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923:
The Court discussed the limited applicability of the 1988 Act to claims under the 1923 Act. It was noted that while the 1988 Act mandates compulsory insurance for motor vehicles, the 1923 Act does not. The statutory duty to indemnify the insured by the insurer arises under the 1988 Act, not the 1923 Act. The Court held that the provisions of the 1988 Act, including Section 143, apply only to cases arising under Chapter X of the 1988 Act and not to claims under Chapter XI. The insurer's liability under the 1923 Act is limited to the claim of the workman, and contracting out is permissible under the 1923 Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court, stating that no Award could be passed against the insurer by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The appeal was dismissed, and the Court emphasized that the provisions of the 1988 Act do not automatically apply to proceedings under the 1923 Act.