Introduction:

In a pivotal judgment delivered on 13 December 2024, the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Shibi Devi, the mother of deceased truck driver Raju, under the Employee’s Compensation Act. Justice Sushil Kukreja, presiding over the matter, ruled that multiple claims arising from the same accident were not maintainable. The case arose after Raju, employed as a truck driver, tragically lost his life in a road accident in 2013 while transporting bricks from Chandigarh to Theog. In 2015, Raju’s widow and daughter had already settled their claim with the employer and the insurer, Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., under an agreement approved by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. However, in 2023, Shibi Devi filed a separate claim citing her dependency on Raju’s earnings and alleged exclusion from the earlier settlement. This claim was contested by both the insurer and the employer, culminating in the High Court ruling against her.

Arguments:

The insurer, Tata AIG, and the employer contended that the mother’s claim was legally untenable, as the widow and daughter had already settled their claims in 2015. They argued that under the Employee’s Compensation Act and Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, only one claim is maintainable per accident, and all dependents should have been included in the initial proceedings. They pointed out that the 2015 settlement covered all legal representatives, rendering any subsequent claim void. Additionally, they argued that if any dependents were excluded, they should have sought impleadment in the original claim proceedings instead of filing a fresh petition years later. They emphasized that the 2015 settlement was final and binding, barring any further claims related to the same accident.

On the other hand, Shibi Devi argued that she was wholly dependent on her late son’s earnings and had been unfairly excluded from the 2015 settlement. She contended that the insurer failed to fulfill its duty of verifying all dependents before processing the settlement. According to her, this procedural lapse invalidated the 2015 settlement and entitled her to file a fresh claim. She further asserted that her exclusion constituted a violation of the Employee’s Compensation Act, which mandates the inclusion of all legal dependents in any claim proceedings. She sought compensation for her dependency and argued that the failure of the insurer and employer to address her dependency at the time of the earlier settlement could not preclude her right to seek redress years later.

Court’s Judgment:

The Himachal Pradesh High Court carefully examined the facts and legal provisions applicable to the case. Justice Sushil Kukreja highlighted that both Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 22 of the Employee’s Compensation Act restrict multiple claims arising from the same cause of action. The court emphasized that the law mandates the inclusion of all dependents in the initial claim petition to ensure comprehensive adjudication. Referring to the proviso to Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the court reiterated that compensation awarded under either Act must benefit all legal representatives of the deceased.

The court noted that while Shibi Devi claimed exclusion from the 2015 settlement, she neither sought impleadment in the original proceedings nor challenged the settlement at the time. Her failure to act in a timely manner, the court held, barred her from filing a separate claim almost eight years after the settlement. It further observed that the 2015 settlement represented a comprehensive resolution of the claims of all legal dependents, and permitting subsequent claims would undermine the finality of such settlements. Consequently, the court ruled that her 2023 claim was not maintainable.

Justice Kukreja allowed the appeals filed by Tata AIG and the employer, setting aside the 2023 award passed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. The court underscored the importance of procedural adherence and the need for all dependents to be represented in the initial claim proceedings. It concluded that permitting multiple claims would lead to legal uncertainty and potential abuse of process.