Case Note & Summary
The High Court allowed appeal by Insurance Company against MACT award granting compensation of Rs.4,94,000/- to legal heirs of deceased R.Manju -- Deceasdaram Alliance ed died in accident on 31.05.2006 while travelling as cleaner in lorry -- Claimants had initially filed under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and obtained award on 15.10.2008 -- They subsequently filed claim under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Court held claimants exercised option under Workmen's Compensation Act and were barred from filing under Motor Vehicles Act for same cause of action -- Award under Workmen's Compensation Act was executable order -- MACT proceedings were not maintainable -- Tribunal's award set aside with direction for refund to insurance company
Headnote
The High Court of Karnataka allowed appeal filed by insurance company against judgment and award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -- Court held claimants who had previously filed claim petition under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and obtained award were barred from filing subsequent claim under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for same cause of action -- Principle of election of remedies applied -- Award under Workmen's Compensation Act dated 15.10.2008 in W.C.No.58 of 2007 was executable order against employer and owner -- Subsequent M.V.C.No.629 of 2011 was not maintainable -- Tribunal's award set aside -- Insurance company entitled to refund of deposited amount
Issue of Consideration
Whether claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is maintainable when claimants had previously filed and obtained award under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for same accident
Final Decision
Appeal allowed -- Impugned award of Tribunal set aside -- Insurance company entitled to refund of amount deposited before High Court -- Amount to be transferred to concerned MACT -- Claimants at liberty to execute award in W.C.No.58 of 2007 before concerned forum
Law Points
- Claimants who elect to file under Workmen's Compensation Act
- 1923 are barred from filing subsequent claim under Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988 for same cause of action -- Award under Workmen's Compensation Act becomes executable order against employer and owner -- Principle of election of remedies prevents multiple claims for same accident
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (02) 35
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 1082 of 2014 (MV-D)
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice P Sree Sudha
Sri. O. Mahesh for Appellant, Sri. D.P. Mahesh for Respondents 1 to 4
The Legal Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited
Smt. Asha @ Kalavathi, Kum Kavana, Shashidhar, Smt. Eramma, S Selva Sundaram
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against compensation award in motor accident claim case
Remedy Sought
Insurance company seeking setting aside of MACT award granting compensation of Rs.4,94,000/-
Filing Reason
Claimants filed MVC No.629/2011 under MV Act after obtaining award in W.C.No.58 of 2007 under WC Act
Previous Decisions
Award dated 15.10.2008 in W.C.No.58 of 2007 under Workmen's Compensation Act -- MFA No.2709 of 2009 allowed by High Court setting aside liability of insurance company in WC proceedings
Issues
Whether claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is maintainable when claimants had previously obtained award under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for same accident
Submissions/Arguments
Insurance company contended claimants exercised option under Workmen's Compensation Act and were barred from filing under Motor Vehicles Act -- Award under WC Act was executable order against employer and owner -- Non-joinder of necessary parties in MV Act claim
Ratio Decidendi
Claimants who elect to file claim under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and obtain award are barred from filing subsequent claim under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for same cause of action -- Principle of election of remedies prevents multiple claims -- Award under WC Act becomes executable order against employer and owner
Judgment Excerpts
Once the claimants have exercised their option and filed claim petition before the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, they are precluded from making another claim before other Forum for the same cause of action
When once he exercised his option under Workman Compensation Act and obtained an award in W.C.No.58 of 2007 dated 15.10.2008, it becomes an executable order against the owner and employer of the deceased
Therefore, the filing of MVC itself is not maintainable and is liable to be set-aside
Procedural History
Accident occurred on 31.05.2006 -- Claimants filed W.C.No.58 of 2007 under Workmen's Compensation Act -- Award passed on 15.10.2008 -- Insurance company filed MFA No.2709 of 2009 -- High Court allowed appeal setting aside liability of insurance company -- Claimants filed MVC No.629/2011 under MV Act -- Tribunal awarded compensation on 10.10.2013 -- Insurance company filed present appeal MFA No.1082 of 2014
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 173(1), Section 166
- Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923:
