Can Employee Insured Under ESI Act Claim Motor Accident Compensation? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench

Can an employee insured under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act? The Supreme Court has referred this issue to larger bench.

The question referred is whether the insurance amount paid under the ESI Act is a “similar benefit” as the compensation which is claimed in a motor accident claim.

In this case, the Allahabad High Court held that the claim made by an employee who is insured under ESI Act would not be maintainable in view of a bar contemplated under Section 53 of the ESI Act.

Section 53 provides 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 Act. Section 61 provides that when a person is entitled to any of the benefits provided by this Act, he shall not be entitled to receive any similar benefit admissible under the provisions of any other enactment.

In the appeal filed against this judgment, the appellant-claimant contended that the bar under Sections 53 and 61 of ESI Act is only if a similar benefit is taken by the workman and in this case it cannot be said a similar benefit as is being claimed has been given to the workman. Reliance was placed on Regional Director E.S.I Corporation & Anr. Vs. Francis DE Costa & Anr. (1993) Supp.(4)SCC 100. The respondent cited two decisions viz. Western India Plywood Ltd. vs. P. Ashokan (1997) 7 SCC 638 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Hamida Khatoon  (2009) 13 SCC 361 to contend the bar would apply.

Referring to these decisions, the bench noted that there is no authoritative pronouncement on the issue whether the insurance amount paid under the ESI Act is a “similar benefit” as the compensation which is claimed in a case where there is a Motor Vehicle accident and claim subsists so as to bar the same.

The court also noted the contention that the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 being a subsequent Act and the provisions in Section 163(A) and 167 begin with a non obstante clause, the bar should not operate against the insured employee under the ESI Act to claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The bench therefore referred the matter to a Larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on this aspect.

Case details

Rajkumar Agrawal vs Vehicle Tata Venture  | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 62 | CA 4941/2022 | 19 Jan 2023 | Justices A S Bopanna and Sudhanshu Dhulia

For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajiv Tyagi, AOR Mr. Rohit Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Avijit Dikshit, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, AOR Mr. K.K. Bhat, Adv. Mr. Divyam Garg, Adv

Headnotes

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 ; Sections 53, 61 - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 ; Section 163A, 167 - Can an employee insured under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act - Whether the insurance amount paid under the ESI Act is a “similar benefit” as the compensation which is claimed in a case where there is a Motor Vehicle accident and claim subsists so as to bar the same - Referred to larger bench.

Click Here To Read/Download Order