Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Krishnaveni on 3 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11267
MFA No. 21967 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21967 OF 2013 (MV-)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
M/S. H.D.F.C. ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
NO.95, VISHAL NAGAR,
ANANTHPUR ROAD, BELLARY,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS,
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY THE,
H.D.F.C. ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, H.M GENEVA HOUSE, NO.14,
CUNNINGHAM ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 052.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR 1. SMT. KRISHNAVENI
W/O. LATE M GOVINDAPPA @ GOVINDA,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
Location: (WIFE OF DECEASED M GOVINDAPPA @ GOVINDA)
HIGH
COURT OF 2. MINOR M. LAILA D/O. M. GOVINDAPPA @ GOVINDA,
KARNATAKA
AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
3. MINOR TARUN BABU S/O. LATE M. GOVINDAPPA
@ GOVINDA
AGE: 9 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
(RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE THE MINORS
REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN,
MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1
KRISHNAVENI
W/O. LATE M GOVINDAPPA @ GOVINDA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11267
MFA No. 21967 of 2013
HC-KAR
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
(WIFE OF DECEASED M GOVINDAPPA @ GOVINDA)
ALL ARE R/O. CHINTALAKUNTA VILLAGE,
ALAHARVI MANDAL,
PRESENTLY R/O.KAREKAL VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. BELLARY.
4. SRI. J.BHOGISHWARAIAH S/O. RAMALINGAIAH,
DRIVER OF THE LORRY BEARING, NO.KA-34/A-4351,
R/O. NO.2/179, CHANDANA VILLAGE,
YADAKI MANDAL, TADIPATHRI TALUK,
DIST. ANANTHPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH.
5. M/S. JANAKI CORPORATION LIMITED,
BY ITS MANAGER,
IRON AND STEEL DIVISION,
OWNER OF THE LORRY,
BEARING REG.NO.KA-34/A-4351,
R/O. SIDIGINAMOLA VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. BELLARY.
6. M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER,
MAIN ROAD, PARVATHI NAGARA, BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH G PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1;
SRI. T. BASAVANAGOUD, ADVOCATE FOR R5'
SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE FOR R6;
R4-NOTICE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF MV ACT 1988, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:20-02-2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.1360/2011 ON THE FILE OF MEMBER, MACT.NO.IX, BELLARY,
AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.3,74,286/- WITH INTEREST
AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE
DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11267
MFA No. 21967 of 2013
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This appeal is filed by the M/s. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Insurance Company') challenging the judgment and award dated 20.02.2013 passed in MVC No.1360/2011 by the Fast Track Court-I and MACT-IX, Bellary ('the Tribunal' for short).
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
2.1. On 07.06.2011, the deceased M.Govindappa @ Govinda, had attended second shift duty at Janaki Factory, situated near Sidiginamole Village. At about 07:15 p.m., the deceased along with other workers, went for tea break.
At that time, the deceased was taking rest behind the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-34/A-4351, which was parked for unloading the mines in a dark place. The driver of the lorry, without looking the deceased sleeping behind the lorry, -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11267 MFA No. 21967 of 2013 HC-KAR suddenly, without giving any indication, drove the lorry in reverse direction in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the wheels of the lorry ran over the body of the deceased; he sustained the grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act' for short) seeking compensation on account of death of the deceased.
3. The owner and driver of the lorry appeared through the counsel. The owner of the lorry filed a written statement and the driver of the lorry adopted the same. The owner of the lorry, in the written statement, admitted the ownership of the lorry and also admitted that, a criminal case was registered against the driver of the lorry and it is contended that, the petitioners have filed a claim petition in WC No.50/2011 on the file of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner-I, Bellary, and the compensation of Rs.4,92,650/- was awarded vide the Commissioner's order -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11267 MFA No. 21967 of 2013 HC-KAR dated 15.06.2011. It is contended that, the second claim petition is not maintainable and hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner and driver of the lorry.
4. The Insurance Company also filed a written statement admitting that, the offending lorry belonged to the owner and the said lorry was insured with the Insurance Company, and denied that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of lorry by its driver. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company.
5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.
6. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, petitioner No.1 was examined as PW-1 and marked twelve documents as Exs.P1 to P12. In rebuttal, on behalf of the respondents, one Anwar Basha was examined as RW-1 and marked nine documents as Exs.R1 to R9, and the Insurance -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11267 MFA No. 21967 of 2013 HC-KAR Company examined its representative as RW-2 and marked one document as Ex.R10.
7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and held that, the petitioners are entitled to receive compensation of Rs.3,74,286/- from the respondents along with future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. and directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within one month from the date of impugned award. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, preferred this appeal.
8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the petitioners.
9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that, before filing of the claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, the petitioners have filed a claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('WC -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11267 MFA No. 21967 of 2013 HC-KAR Act' for short). As per Section 167 of MV Act, the petitioners cannot maintain two claim petitions and to buttress his argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dyamavva and Others1. He submits that the petitioners have already received an amount of Rs.4,92,650/- from the employer of the deceased. The claim petition filed under Section 166 of MV Act is not maintainable. The said aspect was not considered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal committed an error in passing the impugned judgment. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, there is no bar under Section 167 of the MV Act to file a claim petition under both WC Act and MV Act. He also submits that, the word used in Section 167 of MV Act is 'and' but not 'or'. To buttress his argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this 1 (2013) 9 SCC 406 -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11267 MFA No. 21967 of 2013 HC-KAR Court in the case of North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Kulsumbi2. He also placed reliance on the judgment relied upon by the Insurance Company in the case of Dyamavva (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the deduction gives full effect to Section 167 of MV Act, inasmuch as, it awards compensation to the respondents-claimants under the enactment based on the option first exercised. He submits that, the Tribunal has deducted the compensation amount awarded by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and rightly passed the impugned judgment and award. He submits that, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and do not call for any interference. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal.
11. Perused the records and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The point 2 MFA No.8377/2004, decided on 07.09.2010 -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:11267 MFA No. 21967 of 2013 HC-KAR that would arise for consideration is regarding the maintainability of the claim petition.
12. It is not in dispute that on 07.06.2011 the accident occurred and as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the said injuries. A charge sheet was filed against the driver of the offending lorry for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304 of IPC. The petitioner produced the charge sheet marked as Ex.P2. The Tribunal was justified in recording a finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Reg. Maintainability:
13. Insofar as the maintainability is concerned, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that, the petitioners, before filing of the claim petition under MV Act, filed a claim petition under WC Act and the employer participated in the said proceedings, and thereafter the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner passed an award,
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11267 MFA No. 21967 of 2013 HC-KAR awarding compensation of Rs.4,92,650/- and he submits that, the employer had paid the compensation amount to the petitioners. He submits that, the second claim petition is not maintainable under MV Act. The said issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kulsumbi (supra). The Division Bench had framed the following point for consideration:
i) The claimants, having opted to claim compensation under the W.C. Act, are they entitled to claim compensation under Section 166 of M.V. Act?
The said point was answered in the affirmative and held that, "10. ... ... ... No doubt the Commissioner under the W.C.Act has awarded compensation of Rs.1,59,800/-. After allowing the application, the claimants have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act. If the claim petition filed under Section 166 of M.V.Act is held to be contrary to Section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants will suffer irreparable loss and injury as a paltry amount of Rs.1,59,800/- is awarded under the W.C.Act and the same cannot be
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11267 MFA No. 21967 of 2013 HC-KAR just and adequate compensation towards death of the sole bread winner of the family. ... ... ..." The Division Bench, after deducting compensation amount awarded by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, awarded the compensation amount. The issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kulsumbi (supra).
14. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dyamavva (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in paragraph No.19, held as under:
"19. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we hereby affirm the determination rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bagalkot and the High Court in awarding compensation quantified at Rs 11,44,440 to the claimant. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bagalkot, as also the High Court, ordered a deduction therefrom of a sum of Rs 3,26,140 (paid to
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11267 MFA No. 21967 of 2013 HC-KAR the claimants under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923). The said deduction gives full effect to Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inasmuch as, it awards compensation to the respondent claimants under the enactment based on the option first exercised, and also ensures that the respondent claimants are not allowed dual benefit under the two enactments."
15. Therefore, in this case also, it is an admitted fact that, the petitioners have already received compensation of Rs.4,92,650/- in WC No.50/2011 on the file of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner-I, Bellary vide order dated 15.06.2011. Therefore, after deducting the same, Rs.3,74,286/- (Rs.8,66,936/- - Rs.4,92,650/-) was awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned judgment and award. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
16. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11267
MFA No. 21967 of 2013
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. The appeal is dismissed;
ii. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be
transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith;
iii. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE PA CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 2