Multiple claim petitions for the same accident are not maintainable, either under the Employee’s Compensation Act or the Motor Vehicles Act, the Himachal Pradesh High Court says in Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. v Shibi Devi [2024:HHC:14477].
The court pointed out that under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 22 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, only one claim is maintainable per cause of action. All dependents must be included in one petition as the compensation awarded either under the Motor Vehicles Act or the Employee’s Compensation Act is meant for all the legal representatives of the deceased.
The proviso to Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act also stipulates that an application for compensation must be filed for the benefit of all legal representatives.
Therefore, the court dismissed an appeal filed by the dependent mother under the Employee’s Compensation Act, in a case in which the widow and daughter of the deceased employee had already settled their claim in 2015.
Reference
- Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. v Shibi Devi [2024:HHC:14477]
Compassionate Appointment and Nomination in Conflict: Madhya Pradesh High Court Decides Validity
Introduction:
The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the case of Praveen Kochak Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (W.P. No. 26357 of 2021), recently clarified that mere nomination in departmental documents does not automatically confer a right to claim compassionate appointment after the death of an employee. The court, presided over by Justice Subodh Abhyankar, adjudicated a complex family dispute involving the deceased employee’s first wife, second wife, and their respective children. The court ruled that compassionate appointments are governed by the state’s policy and cannot promote polygamy. As a result, the appointment of the second wife’s son was set aside, and the claim of the petitioner, the son of the deceased employee’s first wife, was upheld.
Arguments:
The petitioner, Praveen Kochak, claimed that he was the legitimate son of Hiralal, a Class-III employee in the Public Health & Engineering Department, who died during the COVID-19 pandemic. Praveen contended that his claim for compassionate appointment was unjustly rejected in favor of Yuvraj, the son of Hiralal’s second wife, Usha Bai. He argued that his mother, Shanti Bai, was Hiralal’s first wife, and their marital relationship had been legally recognized in previous judicial proceedings. The petitioner relied on a 2007 maintenance order under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., where Shanti Bai and Praveen were awarded maintenance by the court, proving their legitimate relationship with Hiralal.
The respondents, including Usha Bai and her son Yuvraj, countered by asserting that Hiralal never married Shanti Bai but merely entered into a customary relationship (“Natra”) with her. They emphasized that Hiralal later married Usha Bai, which was valid under their Scheduled Tribe customs. The respondents highlighted that Usha Bai was named as the nominee in all departmental documents, including Hiralal’s nomination form, and that Yuvraj, her son, had been correctly granted the compassionate appointment.
The State, supporting the respondents, argued that the official records consistently identified Usha Bai as Hiralal’s wife and Yuvraj as his son. The State contended that compassionate appointments are made based on official records, and there was no error in the appointment process.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice Subodh Abhyankar carefully examined the submissions and evidence. The court acknowledged that Hiralal belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, where the practice of “Natra” is customary, but emphasized that Praveen was the legitimate son of Hiralal and Shanti Bai. The court noted that there was no evidence to suggest that Hiralal divorced Shanti Bai before marrying Usha Bai. Moreover, Hiralal had failed to inform the government about his second marriage, a requirement under service rules.
The court placed significant reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Khursheed Ahmad Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, which held that polygamy is not an integral part of religion and cannot be promoted by government policies. The court reiterated that compassionate appointments are governed by state policy and must align with constitutional principles, including Article 14, which ensures equality.
The court observed that merely naming a person as a nominee in official documents does not grant an automatic right to compassionate appointment. Nomination only indicates entitlement to certain benefits and does not override the legal and policy framework governing appointments. The court underscored that the policy does not permit second marriages without compliance with legal requirements, and Hiralal’s failure to disclose his second marriage invalidated the claims of his second wife and her son.
While setting aside Yuvraj’s appointment, the court remarked that Praveen had established his legitimacy as Hiralal’s son and was entitled to compassionate appointment under the applicable policy. The court emphasized that any contrary interpretation would indirectly promote polygamy, which is against public policy and judicial precedent.
Judgement – Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the case of Praveen Kochak Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (W.P. No. 26357 of 2021),