Karnataka High Court
Shri K Santhosh Kumar vs Smt C Ambika on 15 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:26160
WP No. 26819 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 26819 OF 2019 (L-ESI)
BETWEEN:
SHRI K SANTHOSH KUMAR,
S/O SRI. K SHANKAR RAO,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,PROP. OF SAVITA OIL MILL,
RESIDENT OF SEEGEBAGI,
CHANNAGIRI ROAD,BHADRAVATI-577301,
DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S R SHINDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT C AMBIKA ,
W/O LATE MANJUNATHA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
Digitally
signed by C 2. KUMARI AADHYA M,
HONNUR D/O LATE MANJUNATHA,
SAB AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS,
Location: MINOR REP BY MOTHER
HIGH RESPONDENT NO.1 SMT. C. AMBIKA
COURT OF RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2
KARNATAKA RESIDENT OF IYYANAHALLY,
KURUBARAHATTY TALUK AND DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA- 577 501.
3. SHRI. MANJAPPA,
S/O HATHERAPPA,AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:26160
WP No. 26819 of 2019
HC-KAR
4. SMT. ERAMMA,
W/O MANJAPPA,AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
RESIDENT OF NEAR ANGANAVADI,
KANAKATTE, BHADRA COLONY,
BHADRAVATI-577301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
(R2 - MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1),
SRI G.M.ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH/SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-A
PASSED ON I..ANO.2 IN ECA NO.9/2018 DTD4.12.2018 BY THE
COURT OF PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHITRDURGA,
BEING ILLEGAL AND AGAINST LAW AND THE CLAIM PETITION
FILED BY R-1 TO 4 UNDER SEC.22 OF THE WORKMAN
COMPENSATION ACT, BEARING ECA NO.9/2018 ON THE FILE
OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHITRADURGA BE DISMISSED
AS NOT MAINTAINABLE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:26160
WP No. 26819 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed against the order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner who was the respondent before the proceeding under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'Act, 1948').
2. The dependants of the deceased employee, invoking Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 sought compensation on account of the death of the workman. In the said proceeding, the employer filed an application to reject the petition on the premise that the application is not maintainable in view of the bar contained under Section 53 of Act, 1948. The Trial Court has rejected the application. Hence, the employer, is before this Court.
3. The admitted factual position is the workman was having an insurance cover and is entitled to the benefits under the Act, 1948 and died in the work place. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:26160 WP No. 26819 of 2019 HC-KAR Thus, he is eligible for pension under the insurance coverage.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ employer submitted that an application under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act to claim compensation on account of death of an employee during the course of employment is specifically barred under Section 53 of Act, 1948. Thus, he would contend that the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application. He would also refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Hamida Khatoon and ors.1 to contend that the Apex Court had an occasion to consider the scope and implication of Section 53 of Act, 1948. He would also refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajkumar Agrawal vs Vehicle Tata Venture No.UP70 BM-1600 Commercial Auto Sales Private Limited Thr. Its Director Sanskar Gupta & Ors.2 and also the judgment of the Apex Court in Western India 1 AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2599 2 Civil Appeal No.4941/2022 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:26160 WP No. 26819 of 2019 HC-KAR Plywood Ltd. vs P.Ashokan3 and the judgment of the Apex Court in Dhropadabai and Others vs M/s. Technocraft Toolings4.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand would submit that the bar contained under Section 53 is only in respect of the compensation which he has already received and to claim compensation which is not granted, the bar does not operate. He would also refer to Section 61 of Act of 1948 to contend that the bar is only in respect of compensation in the event the petitioner had received any benefit under the Act, 1948. He would submit that the petitioner has not received any benefit under the Act, 1948. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel relied on the decision in RAJKUMAR AGRAWAL supra.
6. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar.
3 (1997) 7 SCC 638 4 2015(1) MACR 441(SC) -6- NC: 2025:KHC:26160 WP No. 26819 of 2019 HC-KAR
7. Section 53 of Act, 1948 reads as under:
53. Bar against receiving or recovery of compensation or damages under any other law.- An insured person or his dependents 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 (8 of 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.)
8. From a reading of Section 53, it is evident that the insured person or his dependents are debarred from making a claim for 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. There is no dispute that the injury sustained by the deceased was an employment -7- NC: 2025:KHC:26160 WP No. 26819 of 2019 HC-KAR injury in the sense that injury occurred when he was in the course of his employment. It is not in dispute that he was insured at the time of incident. This being the position, Section 53 of Act, 1948 operates as a bar to claim compensation as the compensation is paid as per the terms of insurance where the dependents will get the monthly benefit every month till their life.
9. As far as Section 61 is concerned, it is to be noticed that Section 61 imposes a bar to claim a similar compensation. In case the compensation is already paid under Act, 1948, Section 61 operates when the person who makes a claim which is similar to the claim made under the provisions of Act, 1948. In other words, the petitioners who are receiving compensation in the form of monthly payment barred under the insurance policy are not entitled to make a similar claim under any other law. However, the bar under Section 53 is specifically with reference to the provisions of Act, 1953. After going through the judgments cited above by the learned counsel -8- NC: 2025:KHC:26160 WP No. 26819 of 2019 HC-KAR for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the issue is covered in favour of the petitioner.
10. Though the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the Apex Court in RAJKUMAR AGRAWAL supra has doubted the ratio in WESTERN INDIA PLYWOOD LTD. supra and the ratio in the NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. Ltd. supra referring the matter to the larger bench, the point that has to be noticed in aforementioned judgment, the Court was dealing with the question whether Section 61 operates as a bar to make a claim under the provisions of Sections 163 and 163A of Motor Vehicles Act.
11. It can be noticed that under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, probably the compensation claimed is different from the compensation claimed under the Act, 1948. However, the compensation which is claimed under the Workmen's Compensation Act is similar to the compensation paid to the insured employee. However, the mode of payment would differ as observed by the Apex -9- NC: 2025:KHC:26160 WP No. 26819 of 2019 HC-KAR Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. supra. Therefore, the petition has to be allowed.
12. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chitradurga in ECA No.09/2018 has to be set-aside.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47