Can the amount received under the ESI Scheme be deducted from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 — s.53 — s.61 — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.166 — Bar against receiving or recovery of compensation under any other law — Employment injury — Claim against a third party tortfeasor — Deduction of ESI benefits — Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 — s.53 — Ingredients cumulative, not disjunctive — Held: The ingredients of Section 53 are not to be read in a disjunctive manner and have to be understood cumulatively. The actual bar arises only when the claim is made by the insured person as an employee under the ESI Act. (¶19, 20) Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 — s.53 — Claim against a third party tortfeasor — Held further: Where the accident takes place in a public place, the injury is not an employment injury and the legal heirs claim against a third party tortfeasor in the individual capacity of the deceased, the bar under Section 53 does not operate. (¶24, 27) Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 — Benefits independent and de hors other Enactments — Held further: The benefits given under the ESI Act are independent and de hors the benefit which a person will be entitled to receive under a different Enactment in a different capacity. They cannot be deducted from the compensation determined under the MV Act. (¶23, 33) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Deduction claimed by the tortfeasor and insurer — Premium on illegality — Held further: A tortfeasor and his insurer cannot seek deduction from the compensation determined under the MV Act only on the ground that benefits were availed under the ESI Act. That would amount to putting a premium on illegality. Appeal allowed and award modified. (¶28, 29, 34)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

(i) On 29.6.2021, the said Mr.A.Kumar was riding a two wheeler at Wallajabad – Vandalur Road and at about 9.30 PM, when he was proceeding near Salamangalam Koot Road, the offending vehicle, which was a lorry, was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the two wheeler, as a result of which, the said Mr.A.Kumar was thrown out of the vehicle, sustained injuries and died on the spot. A first information report came to be filed in Crime No.728 of 2021 before C3 Manimangalam Police Station against the driver of the offending vehicle. The first respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and the second respondent is its insurer. It was under those circumstances, the claim petition came to be filed before the Tribunal below.

(ii) Before the Tribunal below, the second respondent – Insurance Company filed a counter. Apart from other grounds raised by the second respondent – Insurance Company in the counter, one of the main grounds raised was that the deceased was covered under the ESI Scheme, that the appellants - claimants availed the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2026 01:13:06 pm ) benefits under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, the ESI Act) and that therefore they were not entitled to payment of compensation under the MV Act.

(iii) On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal below came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

(iv) The Tribunal below thereafter dealt with the specific defence raised by the second respondent – Insurance Company regarding the benefit availed by the appellants - claimants under the ESI Act and rendered a finding that the claimants were entitled to the amount calculated under the MV Act, that the amount already received under the ESI Scheme must be deducted from the amount determined under the MV Act and that the balance amount alone had to be paid to the appellants - claimants.

(v) The Tribunal below proceeded to determine the total compensation at Rs.29,24,992/-, which was rounded off to Rs.29,25,000/-, under the following heads: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2026 01:13:06 pm ) S.No. Head Amount 1 Loss of income/dependency (Rs.22,376/- X 12 X 13 X 3/4) Rs.26,17,992/- 2 Loss of estate Rs. 16,500/- 3 Loss of consortium (Rs.44,000/- each X 6) Rs. 2,64,000/- 4 Funeral expenses Rs. 16,500/- 5 Transportation charges including damages to personal Rs. 10,000/- belongings Total Rs.29,24,992/- Rounded off Rs.29,25,000/- (vi) The above total compensation amount of Rs.29,25,000/- was directed to be deposited by the second respondent – Insurance Company together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. It was further directed by the Tribunal below that after deposit of the award amount, the amount already received by the claimants under the ESI Scheme should be deducted and that the claimants would be entitled to receive the remaining amount as apportioned by the Tribunal below. Aggrieved by that the appellants – claimants have filed this appeal questioning the deduction of the sums received by them under the ESI Scheme from the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal below under the MV Act. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2026 01:13:06 pm )

“(i) decision rendered by me in C.Aliiammal; (ii) decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajkumar Agrawal Vs. Vehicle Tata Venture No.UP 70 BM 1600 Commercial Auto Sales Private Limited through its Director Sanskar Gupta [reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2450]; (iii) decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Western India Plywood Ltd. Vs. P. Ashokan [reported in 1997 (7) SCC 638]; (iv) decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Hamida Khatoon & Others [reported in 2009 (13) SCC 361]; (v) decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Regional Director, ESI Corporation Vs. Francis De Costa [reported in 1993 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2026 01:13:06 pm ) Supp.(4) SCC 100]; (vi) decision of a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd., Tirunelveli Vs. Mahalakshmi [reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Madras 9076]; (vii) decision of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Ms.Vijaya R.Baait [reported in 2007 ACJ 463]; (viii) decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. S.Ajantha [CMA.No.3365 of 2011 dated 24.4.2012 = reported in 2025 (2) TN MAC 424]; (ix) decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. S.Ajanta [SLP.(C) No.33261 of 2012 dated 07.10.2015]; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2026 01:13:06 pm ) (x) decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Helen C.Rebello Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation [reported in 1999 (1) SCC 90]; (xi) decision of a Full Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi [reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 2215]; (xii) decision of the House of Lords in Anderton Vs. Ryan [reported in 1985 AC 560]; (xiii) decision of the House of Lords in Regina Vs. Shivpuri [reported in 1987 AC 1]; (xiv) decision of a Full Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Keshav Mills Co.Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay North, Ahmedabad [reported in 1965 SCC OnLine SC 80]; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2026 01:13:06 pm ) (xv) decision of a Full Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.Azeez Basha Vs. Union of India [reported in AIR 1968 SC 662 = 1967 SCC OnLine SC 321]; (xvi) decision of a Full Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Aligarh Muslim University Vs. Naresh Agarwal [reported in 2025 (6) SCC 1]; and (xvii) decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr.Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1102].”

(i) decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Jasbir Kaur [reported in 2003 ACJ 1800];

(ii) decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Francis De Costa;

(iii) decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Helen C.Rebello;

(iv) decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan [reported in 2002 ACJ 1441]; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2026 01:13:06 pm )

(v) decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Mastan [reported in 2006 ACJ 528];

(vi) decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hamida Khatoon;

(vii) decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Dyamavva [reported in 2013 ACJ 709];

(viii) decision of the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Shashi Sharma [reported in 2016 ACJ 2723];

(ix) decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh [reported in 2025 ACJ 1441];

(x) decision of the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sebastiani Lakra Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd. [reported in 2019 ACJ 34]; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2026 01:13:06 pm )

(xi) the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajkumar Agrawal;

(xii) reference pending in the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajkumar Agrawal in Diary No.14885 of 2021;

(xiii) decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Daivshala Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. [reported in 2025 (2) TN MAC 233];

(xiv) decision of a Full Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (now known as Khoday India Ltd.) Vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., Kollegal (under liquidation) rep. By the Liquidator [reported in 2019 (4) SCC 376];

(xv) decision of the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court in Mahalakshmi; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2026 01:13:06 pm )

(xvi) decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.Ajantha;

(xvii) decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.Ajanta dismissing the special leave petition on 0710.2015; and

(xvii) decision rendered by me in C.Alliammal.

“12. This Court has to take into consideration primarily two provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred as 'M.V. Act'] and two provisions under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 [hereinafter referred as 'ESI Act']. Insofar as the M.V. Act is concerned, the claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2026 01:13:06 pm ) Section 167 of the M.V. Act provides that whenever the death of or bodily injury to any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under the M.V. Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 [hereinafter referred as the W.C. Act], the person entitled for such compensation must choose either of those Acts to claim compensation and he cannot do it under both enactments. 13. Section 53 of the ESI Act, specifically bars against receiving or recovery of compensation or damages under any other law in spite of an employment injury sustained by the insured person as an employee under the Act. 14. The claim can be initiated under the M.V.Act in spite of the bar provided under Section 53 of the ESI Act in a case where: (a) the accident takes place in a public place (b) the injury is not an employment injury; and (c) such a claim is made against a third party and not against the employer. 15. Section 61 of the ESI Act, also specifically bars benefits provided under the ESI Act, where a person receives a similar benefit under the provisions of any other enactments. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2026 01:13:06 pm ) 16. The learned counsel for the appellant came up with a specific case that the accident had taken place in the course of employment and that the deceased was covered under the ESI and after his demise, the parents of the deceased were receiving the compensation by way of monthly pension from ESI Corporation. It was therefore contended that the bar under Section 53 and 61 of the ESI Act, will start operating. Consequently, the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, is not sustainable. 17. The majority of the judgments that were relied upon by either side would show that the bar to maintain a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V Act, will apply only in a case where such a claim is made against the employer. However, when such a claim is made against a third party for his negligence and such third party is also insured, the bar under Section 53 of the ESI Act, cannot be forced into service. Those judgments proceed on the footing that the benefits granted under the ESI Act is different from the compensation awarded under the M.V. Act. The compensation under the M.V. Act is for the tortuous liability and the benefits granted under the ESI Act, can never be a bar for granting compensation for the death caused in an accident involving a motor vehicle. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2026 01:13:06 pm ) 18. In short, many of the Courts have held that the claim for compensation in tort against a third party can co-exist with a claim for benefits under the ESI Act. The use of the words "any person" in Section 53 of the ESI Act cannot include within its sweep the claim in tort against the third party who is the tortfeasor in cases under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, for compensation for the loss suffered in the accident. It has been held that Section 53 merely bars the claim against the employer under any other law if the compensation is paid under the ESI Act. Considering the beneficial nature of the legislation, it has been held that the insurance coverage under the M.V. Act, is in addition to and not in substitution to the other remedies available to the aggrieved person against a stranger. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of this Court the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Rajkumar Agarwal case referred supra. The Apex Court has taken into consideration various divergent views and therefore the issue has been referred to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. The relevant portions in the order are extracted hereunder: ‘5. The learned counsel for the Respondents would however, refer to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2026 01:13:06 pm ) judgment passed by this Court in Western India Plywood Ltd. vs. P. Ashokan (1997) ACJ 1281 (SC), to contend that a two Judge Bench of this Court has taken note of the provisions in Sections 53, 61 and 2(8) of ESI Act and has held that the bar would apply. The learned counsel has also referred to the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Hamida Khatoon and Ors. (2009) 13 SCC 361 to which the High Court has referred during the course of its order. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has on the other hand referred to another decision of this Court by a Bench of two Hon’ble Judges in the case of Regional Director E.S.I Corporation Vs. Francis DE Costa, 1992 ACJ 636 (SC), wherein it is observed as hereunder: ‘(17) The next contention that the Motor Vehicles Act provides the remedy for damages for an accident resulting in death of an injured person and that, therefore, the remedy under the Act cannot be availed of lacks force or substance. The general law of tort or special law in Motor Vehicles Act or workmen’s Compensation Act may provide a remedy for damages. The coverage of insurance under the Act in an insured employment is in addition to but not in substitution of the above remedies and cannot on that account be denied to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2026 01:13:06 pm ) employee. In K.Bharathi Devi vs. General Insurance Corpn. Of India, 1989 ACJ 157 (AP), the contention that the deceased contracted life insurance and due to death in air accident the appellant received compensation and the same would be set off and no double advantage of damages under Carriage by Air Act be given was negatived.’ 7. In that light having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and having noted the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the parties, we note that though in the decisions, the Hon’ble two Judge Bench of this Court has considered the aspect and even in the case of Western India Plywood Ltd. (supra), the provision in Section 61 has been extracted, 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. 8. Further, learned counsel for the appellant also contends since the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 being a subsequent Act and the provisions in Section 163(A) and 167 begin with a non obstante clause, the bar should not operate against the insured employee under the ESI Act to claim compensation under the Motor https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2026 01:13:06 pm ) Vehicles Act. 9. 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 of Western India Plywood Ltd. (supra), Hamida Khatoon (supra) and the cases referred supra cannot enter into that aspect of the matter. 10. Hence, the Registry to place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India to refer the matter to a Bench of an appropriate strength for authoritative pronouncement on this aspect.’ 20. The question that was referred by the two member Bench of the Apex Court is yet to be decided by a larger Bench. 21. Under normal circumstances, this Court would have awaited for an authoritative pronouncement of the larger Bench of the Apex Court since the issue involved in the present appeal also falls within the scope of consideration by the larger Bench. However, the first and second claimants, who are the parents are senior citizens and they have to be provided with some succor. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to strike a via media. 22. This Court deems it fit to permit the claimants to receive the compensation fixed by the Tribunal after deduction of the amount that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2026 01:13:06 pm ) has been received by the first and second claimants as pension under the ESI Act. If that course is adopted, it cannot be stated that the claimants are taking advantage of two parallel claims under two enactments - one under the M.V. Act and the other under the ESI Act. It will be more beneficial if the claimants are paid compensation fixed by the Tribunal under the M.V. Act. The pension that is paid under the ESI Act to the first and second claimants is very minimal and therefore, the claimants will not loose a large amount of compensation fixed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Once the claimants receive the compensation fixed by the Tribunal, they will not be entitled to receive any compensation under the ESI Act. 23. The above procedure is resorted to in view of the fact that the issue has been referred to a larger Bench by the Apex Court and it is not known as to when the authoritative pronouncement will be rendered by the Apex Court and in the meantime, the claimants, particularly the first and second claimants who are already senior citizens cannot be made to wait to receive the compensation. They may require the compensation for their livelihood. 24. In the light of the above discussion, the award passed by the Tribunal is sustained. Insofar as the quantum of compensation fixed by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2026 01:13:06 pm ) the Tribunal, the amount that has been received by the first and second claimants as pension from the ESI Corporation till 31.07.2024, shall be deducted. The balance shall be paid to the claimants with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. The appellant insurance company has already deposited the entire award amount before the Tribunal with interest pursuant to the interim order passed on 23.08.2023. In view of the same, the compensation amount that was fixed by the Tribunal, after deducting the amount paid by the ESI Corporation, can be permitted to be withdrawn by the first and second claimants. Since the claimants are paid compensation under the M.V. Act, the pension that is paid to the claimants by the ESI Corporation can be brought to an end from 01.08.2024.”

“The stand of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of the bar imposed under Section 53 of the ESI Act, which has been extracted above, since the claimants had the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2026 01:13:06 pm ) benefits under the ESI Act, they are not entitled to claim any compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants, which have been extracted above, clearly indicate that two claims cannot be made as against the same forum but as against different forums namely the employer and the tortfeasor, no bar is imposed. As far as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that since the two words used in Section 53 is ‘any other law for the time being in force’, claiming benefits under two Acts is prohibited is concerned, this Court is not able to accept this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant in view of the above cited judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and other High Courts. The stand of the learned counsel for the claimants is double claim cannot be made as against a single forum namely the tortfeasor or the employer, but two claims, one as against the employer under the ESI Act and the other as against the tortfeasor, under the Motor Vehicles Act for the wrongful act committed by the insured can be made. Consequently, the words used ‘any other law’ will not support the stand of the learned counsel for the appellant. Moreover, since the stand of the learned counsel for the claimants is supported by documents, this Court is of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2026 01:13:06 pm ) opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal has to be confirmed. Hence, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed.”

“53. Bar against receiving or recovery of compensation or damages under any other law - An insured person or his dependants 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 or otherwise, in respect of an employment injury sustained by the insured person as an employee under this Act.”

(c) r/w suffering temporary or permanent disablement S.51 as a result of an employment injury; computed at the prescribed percentage of wages, payable for the period of temporary disablement or for life in case of permanent disablement S.51A Presumption as to Statutory presumption in favour of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2026 01:13:06 pm ) accident arising in employee that an accident arising in the course course of employment of employment is deemed, in the absence of contrary proof, to have arisen out of employment – easing proof of employment injury S.51B Accidents while acting Extends the employment injury cover to in breach of accidents occurring while the employee is acting regulations, etc. in contravention of statutory or other regulations, provided the act is done for the purpose of and in connection with the employer’s business S.51C Accidents while Deems an accident occurring while travelling in travelling in employer’s transport provided by the employer to and from transport the place of work as an employment injury S.51D Accidents while meeting Covers accidents sustained by an employee emergency while taking steps to rescue, save or protect persons or property in an emergency connected with the employer’s premises S.51E Accidents while Extents employment injury coverage to commuting to and from accidents occurring while commuting between work residence and place of employment subject to a nexus of time and place S.46(1) Dependants’ benefit Periodical (monthly) payments to the

(d) r/w dependants – widow/widower, dependant S.52 children and in certain cases, dependant parents – of an insured person, who dies as a result of an employment injury; apportioned among the class of dependants as prescribed. S.52A Occupational disease Treats specified occupational diseases contracted in the course of employment (as listed in the Third Schedule) as employment injury for the purpose of disablement and dependants’ benefit. S.53 Bar against double Bars an insured person or dependant from recovery receiving or recovering compensation or damages under the Workmen's/Employees’ Compensation Act in respect of the same employment injury, confirming ESI as a substitute code for that injury https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2026 01:13:06 pm ) S.54 & Determination and Machinery for determination of the question of S.54A adjudication of disablement by Medical Boards/Medical Appeal disablement Tribunals and appeal therefrom, in employment – injury cases.

(a) r/w average daily wages) to an insured person S.49 for periods of certified sickness, unconnected with any employment injury – available for ordinary illness of the employee, subject to contributory conditions S.46(1) Extended & enhanced Enhanced – rate sickness benefit for long

(a) sickness benefit term/notified diseases and for insured (Regns.) persons undergoing sterilisation – again unrelated to any employment injury S.46(1) Maternity benefit Periodical payment to an insured women for

(b) r/w confinement, miscarriage, or sickness arising S.50 out of pregnancy/confinement/ premature birth – a benefit personal to the female employee, wholly independent of employment injury S.46(1) Medical benefit Full medical treatment and attendance

(e) r/w extended to the insured person and to his/ Ss.56- her family, from the very commencement of 59A insurable employment, without any monetary ceiling – covering sickness, accidents (whether or not employment - related) and general ill-health of family members. This is the clearest illustration of the “family medical https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2026 01:13:06 pm ) cover” character of the scheme S.57 Scale of medical benefit Prescribes the scale/standard of medical treatment (out-patient, in-patient, specialist and super speciality) available to the insured person and family, irrespective of cause of the ailment S.58 Medical treatment by Casts responsibility on the State Government State Government to provide medical treatment and attendance to insured persons and their family through its hospitals/dispensaries, again without reference to employment injury Ss.59 & Establishment of Empowers the Corporation to establish and 59A hospitals; medical run its own hospitals and to itself provide benefit by Corporation medical benefit in lieu of the State Government – the infrastructural back bone of family medical cover S.46(1) Funeral expenses A fixed sum payable to the eldest surviving

(f) member of the family (or the person actually incurring the expenditure) on the death of an insured person – payable on death from any cause, not merely death by employment injury S.65 Benefits not to be Regulates simultaneous drawal of more than combined (Regulatory) one cash benefit, confirming that the Act contemplates several independent, overlapping heads of benefit – sickness, maternity, disablement, dependants’ – available at different points in the same insured person’s working life S.60 Benefit not assignable or Protects all benefits under the Act (medical, attachable sickness, maternity, disablement, dependants’, funeral) from attachment or assignment – applicable uniformly, whether or not the benefit arises from employment injury https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/08/2026 01:13:06 pm )