The Hindu Business Line : ESI Act vs MV Act

Vijaya approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) for compensation. United India Insurance Co Ltd (UI), the insurer of the bus, opposed the claim saying that Vijaya's injury was an `employment' one, eligible for remedies under the ESI (Employees' State Insurance) Act, 1948, and not the MV (Motor Vehicles) Act.

Yet, in 1996, MACT ordered UI to pay Rs 70,000. Aggrieved, UI took the case to the Bombay High Court. There, UI pointed out that if an injury suffered by the employee is an `employment injury' as defined in Section 2 (8) of the ESI Act, then there was a clear bar under Section 53 against receiving or recovering compensation or damages under any other law.

Section 2(8) defines `employment injury' as a personal injury to an employee caused by accident or an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment, being an insurable employment, whether the accident occurs or the occupational disease is contracted within or outside the territorial limits of India.

Section 53 states that an insured person or his dependants shall not be entitled to receive or recover, whether from the employer of the insured person or from any other person, any compensation or damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, or any other law for the time being in force or otherwise, in respect of an employment injury sustained by the insured person as an employee under the ESI Act.

There was evidence from Vijaya that she had taken leave from May 4 to July 15, 1991, and received leave salary from ESI Corporation. Her counsel argued that the injury was not an employment one. He cited ESI vs Francis De Costa, which was about an accident that took place `one kilometre away from the place of employment'; UI vs Susila Panigrahy, where the accident happened before the victim boarded the bus, and so the victim was not a passenger but a third party; and Pauline Decruse vs M.F. Katha Singh, where the victim was in the employer's van, which met with an accident.

However, UI's counsel was quick to cite Section 51C of the ESI Act, according to which if an accident occurred while travelling in employer's transport, it would be deemed to arise out of and in the course of the employment.

Considering all facts and precedents, Justice D. G. Deshpande of the Bombay High Court ruled that this was a case of employment injury. Accordingly, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and Vijaya directed to return to UI any sum received.

LawLane@TheHindu.co.in

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page