Page 125 - DCOM207_LABOUR_LAWS

Labour Laws

Notes


Case Study Supreme Court of India Judgment in Eshwarappa
@ Maheshwarappa and Anr. vs. C. S. Gurushanthappa
and Anr.

A certain Basavaraj was the driver of a privately owned car. In the night of October 28, 1992
he took out the car for a joyride and along with five persons, who were his neighbours,
proceeded for the nearby Anjaneya temple for offering pooja. On way to the temple the
car met with a fatal accident in which Basavaraj and four other occupants of the car died;
the fifth passenger sustained injuries but escaped death. One of the persons dying in that
motor accident was Nagaraj, whose parents are the appellants before this Court.

The heirs and legal representatives of the deceased driver, Basavaraj filed a claim for
compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. They got nothing. The
Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act found and held that the accident
did not take place in course of employment and rejected the claim for compensation.
The heirs of the four occupants of the car, dying in the accident (including the present
appellants) and the fifth passenger suffering injuries in the accident sought compensation
before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Their claims proved to be equally barren.
The appellants took the matter in appeal before the High Court where they were equally
unsuccessful. They are now in appeal before this Court by special leave.
The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants raised a very limited issue. He submitted
that in any event the appellants were entitled to the ‘no fault compensation’ as provided
under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but they were denied even that by the
Tribunal for reasons that are totally unsustainable in law.

We are, therefore, required to see how and why the appellants were denied compensation
under section 140 of the Act and how far the denial was justified. The appellants filed a
claim petition (MVC 1404/92) before the District Judge and MACT, Chitrandurga under
section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the death of Nagaraj. The
appellants’ petition, along with four other claim petitions (filed by the heirs of the other
three occupants dying in that car accident and the fifth occupant who suffered injuries in
that accident), was disposed of by the Tribunal by a common order dated May 9, 1996.
From the order of the Tribunal, it appears that in four of the five cases before it, including
MVC 1404/92, IAs were filed seeking interim compensation of rupees twenty five thousand
(` 25,000.00) only (as the law stood at that time) in terms of section 140 of the Act. For some
reason, however, no order was passed on the IAs and the Tribunal proceeded to examine
the claimants’ claim on merits under section 166 of the Act.
The Tribunal, in its order summarized the cases of each of the five claimants separately,
noting the facts peculiar to the four deceased and the fifth injured occupant of the ill fated
car. It also framed the issues arising in each case separately. In regard to Nagaraj, the son of
the appellants, it noted that at the time of his death he was eighteen years old. According to
the appellants, he worked at a sweetmeat stall and earned rupees eight hundred (` 800.00)
only per month. He was going to Anjaneya temple in the car being driven by Basavaraj and
in the accident he died on the spot. The appellants claimed compensation of rupees one
lakh (` 1,00,000.00) only.

The first two issues in the case of Nagaraj, as in all the other cases, were answered by the
Tribunal in the affirmative. On issue no.3 appellant no.1, the father of the deceased Nagaraj
stated on oath that his son was aged eighteen years and used to work in the hotel of one
Contd...

120 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY