[Motor Accident] Can employee entitled to benefits under ESI Act raise claim under Motor Vehicles Act? Supreme Court larger bench to decide

The Supreme Court recently referred to a larger bench the question of whether an employee entitled to receive benefits under the Employees' State Insurance Act of 1948 (ESI Act) for a motor accident, can claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act of 1988 as well [Rajkumar Agarwal v. Vehicle Tata Venture No. UP 70-BM-1600 Commercial Auto Sales Private Limited through its Director Sanskar Gupta and Others]..The question that arose before a division bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Sudhanshu Dhulia was whether the insurance amount paid to the employee insured under the ESI Act 1948 can be said to be a 'similar benefit' as the compensation which is claimed in a case where there is a Motor Vehicle accident.The Court was hearing an appeal against a decision of the Allahabad High Court which had set aside the claim granted to the appellant-employee and had held that the motor accident compensation claim made by the appellant-employee insured under the ESI Act 1948 would not be maintainable in view of the bar under Section 53 read with Section 61 of that Act. .Section 53 of the ESI Act provides that an insured person or his dependents 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, in respect of an employment injury sustained by the insured person as an employee under the 1948 Act.Section 61 of the ESI Act provides that when a person is entitled to any of the benefits provided by the 1948 Act, he shall not be entitled to receive any similar benefit admissible under the provisions of any other enactment..In appeal against the High Court's decision, the appellant argued that Section 53 of the ESI Act cannot be considered as a bar when a claim by an insured employee is made under the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant argued that the bar under Sections 53 and 61 of the ESI Act is only if a similar benefit is taken by the workman. However, in the instant facts it cannot be said that a similar benefit as is being claimed, was given to the appellant-employee. It was also argued by the appellant that since the MV Act 1988 being a subsequent act and the provisions in Sections 163(A) and 167 of the MV Act begin with a non obstante clause, the bar should not operate against the insured employee under the ESI Act.Furthermore, it was also highlighted that the appellant has undergone amputation of the lower limb and the benefit paid to him was in terms of Section 46 of ESI Act, which is periodical payment from insurance amount which also contains his contribution and not by way of compensation which he is otherwise claiming under the Motor Vehicles Act. In order to prove his claim maintainability, the appellant relied on the decision in Regional Director ESI Corporation and Another v. Francis DE Costa and Another (1993).On the other hand, the respondents relied on the decisions in Western India Plywood Limited v. P Ashokan (1997) and National Insurance Company Limited v. Hamida Khatoon and Others (2009), to contend that the bar under sections 53, 61 and 2(8) of the ESI Act would apply..Referring to the above decisions, the Court noted that there is no authoritative pronouncement on the same as to 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.While referring the matter to the larger bench, the Court observed:"These contentions require an authoritative pronouncement by a larger Bench since this Bench being of a similar strength to the Bench which decided the case in Western India Plywood Ltd. (supra) and National Insurance Company vs. Hamida Khatoon (supra) and the cases referred supra cannot enter into that aspect of the matter."Therefore, the Bench has asked the registry to placed the matter before the Chief Justice of India for referring the same to the larger bench..[Read Order]