Legal Dilemma: How to Support an Injured Worker When Compensation Options Are Limited

Injury at Automobile Dealership: Legal Dilemma

A workman working at an automobile dealership got injured within the premises after being hurt by a demo car coming from inside the workshop. He was not covered under the EPF and ESIC Acts, and the employer cunningly made him take compensation under the MACT Act, escaping from his liability and leaving the employee in a lurch.

Legal Constraints and Next Steps

Now, as per the law, one can only receive compensation under one act. Please advise on the further course of action as the labor department is likely to reject our request under the Payment of Compensation Act since he has already received compensation under the MACT Act.

Dear friend,

It is over once and for all. Since the employer, acting as a dealer, was the owner of the insured demo vehicle, his employee was compensated under the MV Act. Section 167 of the M.V Act, 1988 permits the option of claiming compensation for death or bodily injury only under either the EC Act, 1923, or the M.V Act, 1988, but not under both.

Seeking Opinion on Compensation Under MVACT vs. Workmen's Compensation Act

I am asking for further opinion regarding the claim under the MVACT, which was negligible compared to the Workmen's Compensation Act. The employer cunningly persuaded the employee to seek compensation under MVACT, despite the accident occurring within the premises and the employer being absolutely liable for compensation.

The employee has a disability and is entitled to more compensation as he is unable to stand straight, and being a gunman, he is no longer fit for work. He was receiving a salary of Rs. 15,000/- and was covered under both the ESIC and EPF Acts. However, the employer failed to comply with the acts and did not enroll the employee as a member under these Acts.

I am seeking a way for the employee to receive compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The employee is willing to repay the compensation received under the MVACT. Is there any provision under this act for such a situation?

Please help.

Sorry, my dear friend, I am unable to offer any alternative in view of the compensation claim having been filed, inquired, and disposed of by the competent Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In my opinion, any further claim for compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 for the same employment accident would be barred by the doctrine of Res judicata.