SC rules in favour of insurance firms

LEGAL DIGEST

Insurance firms have received a judgment in their favour from the Supreme Court in the National Insurance Company vs Mastan case.

The apex court, overruling the Karnataka High Court, emphasised that a person could not seek compensation under both the Workman's Com-pensation Act (WCA) and the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA) for the same accident.

In this case, a cleaner of a truck had an accident leading to 50 per cent disability. He was awarded Rs 2.7 lakh in damages by the commissioner of workman's compensation.

The insurance firm moved the high court. It held that while defending an action under the WCA, the insurer could argue only on the violation of any condition in the policy and was precluded from raising any defence available under the MVA.

The apex court reversed this view saying Section 167 of the MVA provided an option and the claimant should choose one of them.

'Discipline in work place is must'

With reference to industrial relations under the new economic regime, the Supreme Court said in the Hombe Gowda vs State of Karnataka case last week , "This court has come a long way from its earlier viewpoints. The recent trend in the decisions of this court seek to strike a balance between the earlier approach of the industrial relation wherein only the interest of workmen were sought to be protected with the avowed object of fast industrial growth. In several decisions, it has been noticed that how discipline at work place received a setback. In view of the change in the economic policy of the country, it may not now be proper to allow workers to break the discipline with impunity."

The court was dealing with a case in which an employee assaulted his boss with a chappal. The labour tribunal asked the management to reinstate him with back wages , though he was found guilty of the assault.

"The tribunal will not normally interfere in the quantum of punishment imposed by the employers unless an appropriate case is made out," the apex court said.

No excise duty on herbal tonic

The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal in the Commissioner of Central Excise vs Maharshi Ayurved Corporation Ltd case and ruled that the herbal tonic "Herbonic" was exempt from excise duty.

The company claimed that the preparation contained vegetables, nuts and other parts of plants and fruits/seeds and no duty was leviable.

The authorities, on the other hand, said the product was a mixture of assorted vegetables and dry fruits or seeds and was a health vitaliser used for all-round growth and improvement of memory and general health of children and adults and the product was chargeable to duty at a rate of 20 per cent ad valorem.

The commissioner upheld the view of the department, but Cegat accepted the company's arguments. The apex court upheld the tribunal's view while dismissing the department's appeal.

Infringement of trade mark

A complaint of infringement of trade mark can be moved only when a registered mark is used and not when an application is filed for registration of the trade mark.

In a given case, an application for grant of registration certificate may or may not be allowed. A suit may lie where an infringement of trade mark or copyright takes place but a cause of action for filing the suit will not arise within the jurisdiction of the court only because an advertisement has been issued in the Trade Marks Journal or any other journal, notifying the filing of an application.

These rulings were made by the apex court in two judgments last week. In the Dhodha House vs SK Maingi case, the apex court upheld the Allahabad High Court verdict.

In the Patel Field Marshal Industries vs PM Diesel Ltd case, dealing with trade mark for diesel engines, the apex court overruled the Delhi High Court order, which held contrary to the principles laid down by the apex court.