Justice Sushil Kukreja, Himachal Pradesh High Court
Employees Compensation Act| Only One Claim Petition Maintainable For A Single Cause Of Action; All Dependents Must Be Impleaded Together: Himachal Pradesh HC
|The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that only one claim petition is maintainable for a single cause of action, requiring all dependents or legal representatives of the deceased to be impleaded together, with no separate applications allowed under the Employees Compensation Act.
The Court quashed an award granting compensation to the mother of a deceased truck driver on the grounds that a second claim Petition for the same cause of action was not maintainable. The Bench allowed the appeal filed by Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurance Company/Appellant) after quashing the impugned Award that granted compensation to the mother of the deceased.
A Single Bench of Justice Sushil Kukreja held that “only one claim petition is maintainable in respect of one cause of action and all the dependents/legal representatives of the deceased have to get impleaded in the said petition and each one cannot file separate application.”
Advocate Jagdish Thakur represented the Appellant, while Advocate Rajat Kumar appeared for the Respondents.
The widow and the daughter of a deceased truck driver had filed a compensation claim under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act. The claim was settled with a compensation award by the Insurance Company.
Later, the deceased’s mother and father also filed a separate claim Petition under the same Act. The Petition was allowed by the Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation, granting compensation to the parents as well. The same was challenged before the High Court.
The Bench pointed out that Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act) gives an option to claimants to elect the forum where the death of any person might give rise to a claim for compensation under the MV Act and the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.
“Any application claiming compensation, either under the Motor Vehicles Act or under the Employee’s Compensation Act where death has resulted from the accident, even if preferred by one of the legal representatives/dependents is on behalf of all the legal representatives/dependents of the deceased,” the Court explained.
The widow and daughter of the deceased were deemed dependents as defined under Section 2(d) of the Employees Compensation Act. The Bench stated that the mother, who was not impleaded in the initial petition, should have sought redress through appropriate legal remedies instead of filing a separate claim. “Thus, this Court cannot interfere with the award dated 23.06.2015 passed by learned Commissioner in favour of respondents No. 4 and 5, i.e. the widow and daughter of deceased Raju, since the same is not under challenge before this Court,” it stated.
Consequently, the Court held that “the subsequent petition filed by the parents of the deceased is not maintainable and the impugned award passed in favour of the mother of the deceased Shibi Devi deserves to be quashed.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal by the Insurance Company.
Cause Title: Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shibi Devi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:HHC:14477)