*291 OPINION OF THE COURT BY

These consolidated appeals from the judgments in favor of defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual) are (1) by plaintiff Frederick Chun (Chun) in Civil No. 65479, which is our No. 9501, and (2) by plaintiff Alexander W. Thoene, Jr. (Thoene) in the consolidated case of Civil Nos. 67716 and 67882, which constitute our No. 9538.

The sole issue on appeal is whether no-fault monthly earnings loss benefits are payable secondarily to the regular monthly salary paid to an injured police officer during the period of his total disability pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 79-15 (1976 & Supp. 1983). 1 We answer no and reverse.

*292 I.

A.

In Civil No. 65479, police officer Chun was injured in an accident while operating a motorcycle on May 4, 1979. His injuries rendered him unfit for duty for 45 working days. During the period of his disability, he was placed on accidental injury leave and received his regular monthly salary of $1,178 2 under HRS § 79-15. Liberty Mutual was his no-fault insurer.

On May 1, 1981, Chun sued Liberty Mutual basically for monthly earnings loss benefits under the No-Fault Insurance Law, HRS chapter 294 (No-Fault Law). By its order filed on June 28, 1983, the trial court granted Liberty Mutual’s motion for summary judgment and a judgment was entered on the same date.

B.

In Civil Nos. 67716 and 67882, police officer Thoene was injured while on duty in automobile accidents occurring on October 14, 1979 and February 24, 1980. After each accident Thoene was placed on accidental injury leave for a period of time 3 and received his HRS § 79-15 regular monthly salary 4 while he was disabled. Liberty Mutual was also the no-fault insurer of Thoene.

Thoene sued Liberty Mutual basically to recover no-fault monthly earnings loss benefits, plus general and punitive damages for the insurer’s willful and wanton denial of no-fault benefits. After the consolidation of the cases on November 17,1982, the trial court granted Liberty Mutual’s motion for summary judgment on August 11, 1983. The entry of judgment followed on August 15, 1983.

*293 II.

Liberty Mutual contends that (1) under HRS § 294-5(b), no-fault benefits are to be paid “secondarily” to workers’ compensation benefits received by a no-fault insured; (2) the regular monthly salary paid to an injured police officer under HRS § 79-15 is “equivalent to” or “in lieu of” workers’ compensation benefits; (3) the HRS § 79-15 payments received by Chun and Thoene exceeded $800 per month; 5 and (4) therefore, Liberty Mutual had no legal obligation to pay any no-fault earnings loss benefits to either of them. We disagree.

Upon incurring an “accidental harm,” 6 a no-fault insured is entitled to receive from the no-fault insurer “no-fault benefits” 7 including, inter alia, benefits for “monthly earnings loss,” the measurement of which is covered in HRS § 294-2(10)(C) (1976) 8 as follows:

(C) Monthly earnings loss measured by an amount equal to the lesser of:

(i) $800 per month, or

(ii) The monthly earnings for the period which the accidental harm results in the inability to engage in available and appropriate gainful activity, or

(iii) A monthly amount equal to the amount, if any, by which the lesser of (i) or (ii) exceeds any lower monthly earnings of the person sustaining injury at the time he re-, sumes gainful activity.

*294 However, payments of no-fault benefits are subject to HRS § 294-5 (b) 9 which provided in relevant part in 1979 and 1980 as follows:

All no-fault benefits shall be paid secondarily and net of any benefits a person is entitled to receive because of the accidental harm from social security laws or workers’ compensation laws; ....

Act 33, § 1, 1978 Haw. Sess. Laws 41.

We hold that the language in HRS § 294-5(b) is plain, clear, and unambiguous: the payment of no-fault benefits is secondary only to social security and workers’ compensation benefits. No-fault benefits are fully payable to an insured receiving any other benefits.

III.

We are “bound by the plain, clear and unambiguous language of a statute unless the literal construction would produce an absurd and unjust result and would be clearly inconsistent with the purposes and policies of the statute.” In re the Estate of Spencer, 60 Haw. 497, 499, 591 P.2d 611, 613 (1979). See also Chun v. Employees’ Retirement System of the State of Hawaii, 61 Haw. 596, 607 P.2d 415 (1980); In re Grayco Land Escrow, Ltd., 57 Haw. 436, 559 P.2d 264, cert. denied 433 U.S. 910, 97 S.Ct. 2976, 53 L.Ed.2d 1094 (1977); Mabe v. Real Estate Commission, 4 Haw. App. 552, 670 P.2d 459 (1983).

A.

There is no dispute that the language in HRS § 294-5(b) is plain, clear, and unambiguous. It expressly states that no-fault

(Supp. 1983), a police officer or firefighter has the benefit of a presumption that some types of incapacitation or death are the result of inherent occupational hazard. A fireman also has the benefit of a similar presumption when applying for service-connected occupational disability retirement under HRS § 88-79 (1976).

IV.

We hold that no-fault monthly earnings loss benefits are payable primarily, and not secondarily, to HRS § 79-15 benefits. Liberty Mutual, therefore, is obligated to pay no-fault earnings loss benefits at the rate of $800 per month to Chun and Thoene, respectively, during their respective periods of disability, subject to the aggregate limit of $15,000 per person imposed by HRS § 294-2(10) (1976). Accordingly, we reverse and remand the case for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Reversed and remanded.