Workplace road crash — choosing between the labour compensation route and the MACT
When a worker is killed or injured in a motor accident that arises out of and in the course of his employment, two statutory compensation regimes open at once. The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (until the 2009 amendment renamed it, the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923) imposes no-fault liability on the employer and computes compensation by a wage-and-age formula under Schedule IV. Sections 165 to 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 create the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which adjudicates motor-accident claims on a fault-or-no-fault basis and computes quantum under the multiplier framework worked out in Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 and the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Co Ltd v Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680. Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is the election clause — the person entitled to compensation may claim under either Act, but not under both. The Supreme Court in Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya v Union of India , (2006) 7 SCC 643 read the election as a deliberate legislative choice and rejected a constitutional attack on the election bar. National Insurance Co Ltd v Mastan , (2006) 2 SCC 641 worked out the no-fault-liability bridge between Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Employees' Compensation Act. Ved Prakash Garg v Premi Devi , AIR 1997 SC 3854 settled the insurer's indemnity position for awards under the 1923 Act where the deceased was driving an insured motor vehicle. This guide maps the election — the two forums, the two quantum methods, the evidentiary differences, the limitation differences, and the irreversibility of the choice.