- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1493 MFA No. 201382 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201382 OF 2014 (MV-D) BETWEEN: 1. LALITA BAI W/O LATE VINOD, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. AMAR S/O LATE VINOD, AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 3. ABRAHAM S/O LATE VINOD, AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 4. MARY D/O LATE VINOD, AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 5. ARUN S/O LATE VINOD, AGE: 12 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 6. KALLAPPA S/O LATE JATTEPPA, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: NIL, 7. RAMAWWA W/O KALLAPPA, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: NIL, THE APPELLANT NO. 3 TO 5 ARE MINORS, Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1493 MFA No. 201382 of 2014 UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR REAL MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1, AND ALL R/O MALCHAPUR, TQ. BHALKI, DIST. BIDAR. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHARANABASAPPA K. BABSHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: SANGAMMA W/O BHIMANNA ALLAMBURE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSE-HOLD & BUSINESS, R/O VILLAGE VILASPUR, TQ. BHALKI, DIST. BIDAR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAHUL R. ASTURE, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 24.05.2014, PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, M.A.C.T. BIDAR SITTING AT BHALKI, IN MVC NO.181/2010 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANTS AND ENTIRE LIABILITY MAY BE FIXED ON THE RESPONDENT. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1493 MFA No. 201382 of 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard both sides. 2. This proceeding has checkered history. The appellants-petitioners filed a claim petition in MVC No.181/2010 before the Addl. Dist. Judge, MACT-Bidar, sitting at Bhalki (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 3. They had contended that they being the widow and the dependents of one Vinod, who died in a road traffic accident involving a tractor and trailer owned by the sole respondent therein, claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said petition came to be allowed and the Tribunal awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.6,46,000/- under different heads as below: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1493 MFA No. 201382 of 2014 Sl.No. Heads Amount 1. Loss of dependency to petitioner Nos.1 to 7 Rs.5,76,000/- 2. Loss of estate Rs.10,000/- 3. Loss of love and affection to the petitioners No.1 to 7 at Rs.5,000/- each Rs.35,000/- 4. Transportation of dead body and funeral expenses Rs.10,000/- 5. Loss of consortium to the petitioner No.1 Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.6,46,000/- 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached this Court in MFA No.201382/2014. In the meanwhile, execution proceedings were also initiated in E.P.No.133/2014. During the pendency of this appeal, the matter was settled before the executing Court. 5. After hearing both sides, the appeal i.e. MFA No.201382/2014 was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by judgment dated 31.03.2022 and this Court had enhanced the compensation from Rs.6,46,000/- to Rs.6,92,600/-. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1493 MFA No. 201382 of 2014 6. Thereafter, a review petition came to be filed by the respondent herein in R.P.No.200027/204. 7. The learned Bench which had disposed off the MFA No. 201382/2014 on 31.03.2022, in a detailed order noted that there was a settlement between the parties before the executing Court and therefore suppressing such settlement, a judgment has been obtained in MFA No. 201382/2014 dated 31.03.2022, recalled the said judgment by allowing the review petition. 8. In paragraph No.7 of the order in the review petition this Court has observed as below: “7. It is not in dispute that the respondents filed the claim petition in MVC.No.181/2010 on the file of Additional District Judge, MACT, Bidar sitting at Bhalki. The said claim petition came to be allowed vide judgment and award dated 24.05.2014. The respondents, being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed the appeal in MFA.No.201382/2014 and also filed an execution petition in EP.No.133/2014. During the pendency of the miscellaneous first appeal, the parties have entered into settlement and the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1493 MFA No. 201382 of 2014 respondents filed a memo on 23.01.2015 in execution petition before the Executing Court, wherein it is stated that the decree holder has received the award of compensation from the J.Dr. out of Court and the award is fully satisfied. Now the D.Hr. is not intending to proceed with and the case, may kindly be closed as fully satisfied. That once the parties have arrived at a settlement in respect of any dispute and that dispute is amicable settled by way of a final settlement is set aside in proper proceedings, it cannot lie in the mouth of one of the parties to the settlement to spurn it on the ground that the respondents executed an award passed by the tribunal. The appeal is the continuation of original proceeding. If this is permitted to the sanctity of contract, the settlement also being a contract, would be wholly lost and it would be open to one party to take the benefit under the settlement and then to question the same without having the settlement set aside. I am of the opinion that since the dispute was finally settled and payments were made as per the settlement, it was not open to the respondents to continue the appeal. The Executing Court, vide order dated 23.01.2015, accepted the memo and dismissed the execution petition as fully satisfied. The respondents have no right to proceed with the appeal in MFA.No.201382/2014. The respondents have misled - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1493 MFA No. 201382 of 2014 this Court and obtained the disposal of MFA.No.201382/2014. As the petitioner has already paid the compensation amount in full satisfaction and the respondents have no right to proceed with the appeal. Thus, the judgment passed in MFA No.201382/2018 dated 31.03.2022 is liable to be reviewed.” 9. Thus, it is very clear that the appellants herein suppressing the fact that there was a settlement before the executing Court had obtained an orders of enhancement, the present appeal is also not maintainable. This observation is made by this Court in review petition. 10. It is trite law that execution proceedings is a continuation of the original proceedings. It cannot be treated as an independent proceeding at any stretch of imagination. In umpteen number of judgments, the High Courts and the Apex Court have held that execution proceedings are continuation of the original proceedings. Therefore, if settlement is reached between the parties in executing Court, there cannot be any continuation of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1493 MFA No. 201382 of 2014 original proceeding in whatsoever manner unless the settlement itself provides for. 11. Therefore, the present appeal also do not survive as observed by this Court in review petition. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 58 CT: AK