DUAL COMPENSATION UNDER THE ESI ACT AND MOTOR VEHICLES ACT: LEGAL CONFLICT, JUDICIAL TRENDS, AND THE PENDING LARGER BENCH REFERENCE

Abstract

The issue of whether an employee covered under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 can claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the same employment-related motor accident has generated persistent judicial controversy. Section 53 of the ESI Act bars recovery under “any other law” for an employment injury, while the MV Act provides an independent, victim-oriented compensation regime through Sections 163A and 166. This article examines the resulting conflict between social insurance and tort-based liability frameworks. It analyses leading Supreme Court decisions, divergent High Court approaches particularly in third-party claims and the evolving interpretation of “employment injury” and “similar benefits.” The article further evaluates the implications of the pending larger bench reference in Raj Kumar Agarwal v. Tata Venture. It argues that although current jurisprudence favours exclusivity of ESI remedies to prevent double recovery, the final legal position remains unsettled pending authoritative judicial clarification.