In a notable decision, the Himachal Pradesh High Court clarified that multiple claim petitions for the same accident are not maintainable under the Employee’s Compensation Act. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sushil Kukreja, quashed a 2023 award granted to the mother of a deceased employee, holding that the earlier settlement in 2015 by the widow and daughter of the deceased barred any subsequent claims.

Background

The case arose from the death of Raju, a truck driver, in a road accident in 2013. While transporting bricks from Chandigarh to Theog, the truck veered off the road, leading to Raju's demise. In 2015, Raju’s widow and daughter settled their claim before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner for ₹7,20,000. However, in 2023, Raju’s parents Shibi Devi and Chimna Ram, filed a fresh claim alleging dependency on her son’s earnings. The Commissioner awarded them ₹2,34,053, along with a penalty of ₹1,05,324 imposed on the employer.

This award was challenged by the insurer, Tata AIG General Insurance Company, and the employer on the grounds of non-maintainability. The mother also appealed, seeking an enhancement of the award.

The question which arose for consideration before the High Court was as to whether the subsequent petition filed by the parents of the deceased claiming compensation on account of death of the their deceased son Raju was maintainable, particularly in view of the fact that the claim petition filed by the widow and daughter of the deceased had already been allowed vide award dated 23.06.2015 passed by the Court of learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act, Theog, H.P..

Court's Analysis

The court emphasized the principle under Section 22 of the Employee’s Compensation Act and Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act that only one claim petition is permissible for a single cause of action. It held that any compensation awarded for a fatal accident must be for the collective benefit of all legal representatives of the deceased. If any dependent is omitted, they should seek impleadment in the original claim and cannot file separate claims later.

Justice Kukreja noted that Raju's widow and daughter had already settled their claim in 2015, which attained finality. The mother neither sought impleadment in the 2015 proceedings nor challenged the settlement at that time. Consequently, her fresh petition in 2023 violated the principle of finality and the bar on multiple claims for the same accident.

The court further observed that the insurer had acted in accordance with the law during the earlier settlement. While the mother contended that she was excluded due to the insurer's failure to verify dependents, the court rejected this argument, stating that she had not pursued legal remedies in a timely manner.

Judgment

Allowing the appeals filed by the insurer and the employer, the court quashed the 2023 award granted to Shibi Devi. It reaffirmed that dependents of a deceased employee must act collectively when pursuing compensation claims. Justice Kukreja remarked, “Only one claim petition is maintainable for a single cause of action, and all dependents must be impleaded in the original claim.”

Cause Title: Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shibi Devi

Citation: 2024:HHC:14477

Date: December-13-2024

Bench: Justice Sushil Kukreja

[Read/Download order]