- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010261032016 NC: 2026:KHC:36747 MFA No. 2678 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5594 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2678 OF 2016 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5594 OF 2016 (MV-I) IN MFA No. 2678/2016: BETWEEN: M/S LIBERTY VIDEOCON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., PRESTIGE KADA, 3RD FLOOR, UNIT NO.302, NO.202, RICHMOND ROAD, BENGALURU-560025 REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LITIGATION MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. A. SHEKHARAIAH S/O ANDANI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, NO.97, C/O CABLE, 10TH MAIN, NEAR ICE FAB, BILEKEHALLI, D.C.MAIN ROAD, B.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 076. 2. NILANJANA BASU S/O SANKARSHAN BASU, MAJOR AGE, QUARTERS NO.437, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010261032016 NC: 2026:KHC:36747 MFA No. 2678 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5594 of 2016 IIMB FACULTY QUARTERS, BILEKAHALLI, B.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 076. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SMT. SOWMYA LAKSHMI BHAT., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 16.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1425/14 ON THE FILE OF THE 19TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & MACT, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,13,592/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF DEPOSIT TILL ITS REALIZATION. IN MFA NO. 5594/2016: BETWEEN: A. SHEKARAIAH S/O ANDANI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.97 C/O CABLE 10TH MAIN, NEAR ICE FAB, BILEKAHALLI, D.C.MAIN ROAD, B.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-76 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHRIPAD V SHASTRI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGER LIBERTY VIDEOCON GEN.INS CO.LTD., PRESTIGE KADA, 3RD FLOOR, UNIT NO.302, NO.202, RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE-25. 2. MR NEELANJANA BASU S/O SANKARSHAN BASU, QTRS NO.437, IIMB FACULTY QUTRS, BILEKAHALLI, B.G.ROAD, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010261032016 NC: 2026:KHC:36747 MFA No. 2678 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5594 of 2016 BANGALORE-76. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 16.01.2016 PASSED IN MVC NO.1425/14 ON THE FILE OF THE 19TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & MACT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 16.06.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT These appeals are filed against the judgment and award dated 16.01.2016 passed by the XIX Additional SCJ and MACT, in MVC No.1425 of 2014. 2. The injured claimant, met with an accident on 18.03.2014, and filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted the compensation of Rs.2,13,592/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010261032016 NC: 2026:KHC:36747 MFA No. 2678 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5594 of 2016 3. Aggrieved by the said order, M.F.A. No.2678 of 2015 is preferred by the insurance company in which it is mainly contended that respondent No.2 is the owner of the car and the appellant-insurance company is the insurer. During the cross- examination, the claimant clearly admitted that he already availed the benefit under ESI scheme, and in view of the specific bar created under Section 53 read with Section 2(14) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ‘ESI Act’), he is not entitled for any relief under any other law. It is contended that in view of the aforementioned Sections, the claimant is not entitled to receive or recover compensation or damages from the appellant-insurance company and therefore, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed as non-maintainable. But, the Tribunal granted compensation erroneously and the award of the Tribunal is contrary to the specific bar created under Section 53 of ESI Act. Once a person covered under the provision of ESI Scheme cannot make claim before any other forum as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhropadabai and others. It is further contended that Tribunal appreciated the efforts made by the appellant-insurance - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010261032016 NC: 2026:KHC:36747 MFA No. 2678 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5594 of 2016 company to procure the attendance of RTA Alipore to prove that Driving Licence of driver of the insured vehicle was fake, but RTA did not turn up. They simply stated that they did not find the records pertaining to the driving licence. But, the Tribunal instead of concluding that no driving licence was issued by the RTA, observed that as per the records it was transferred to Bangalore, RTA. As such, the Alipore RTA has no records with them and the said assumption is contrary to the records. It is also contended that the endorsement issued by RTO, Alipore, at Exhibit R5 is not considered by the Tribunal. Renewal of the fake licence will not make it as a proper licence. The reasoning of the Tribunal in fixing the liability against them is erroneous and thus, requested this Court to set aside the order of the Tribunal. 4. M.F.A. No.5594 of 2016 is filed by the claimant against the aforesaid judgment and award of the Tribunal for enhancement of the compensation and mainly contended that Tribunal granted meagre amounts under the head pain and suffering and loss of amenities, though he was inpatient for more than 5 days and he sustained 24% physical disability. The - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010261032016 NC: 2026:KHC:36747 MFA No. 2678 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5594 of 2016 amounts granted under the other heads are meagre. The claimant was a security officer at site in charge and earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month. But, the tribunal erred in taking the income of Rs.6,600/- per month without any basis and no amount is granted towards future medical expenses though he required one more surgery for removal of the implants and the estimated cost of the same was Rs.40,000/-. Thus, he requested for enhancement of the compensation. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. 6. The manner of accident shows that on 18.03.2014 while petitioner was riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-05-EN-5773 on Bannerghatta main road, a car bearing registration No.KA-05-MM-7660 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle of the claimant. As a result, the claimant fell down and sustained injuries. He was working as Security Officer at a site in charge at G4S company and getting a salary of Rs.15,500/- per month. The insurance company has stated that policy is in force, but the driver of the car is not having a valid and effective DL. When they sent the copy of DL to RTO, Alipore, on - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010261032016 NC: 2026:KHC:36747 MFA No. 2678 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5594 of 2016 verification, it was revealed that they do not have any record pertaining to the said licence. This clearly shows that driver of the car was having a fake licence as on the date of accident and as such, they are not liable to indemnify the owner. The insurance company stated that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the car and accident occurred only due to the negligence of the claimant. Respondent No.2 in their written statement has stated that driver of the car was having a licence to drive the vehicle and it is insured and as such, the insurance company has to indemnify them. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company, in their appeal, contended that, during cross-examination, the claimant admitted that he availed the benefit under ESI claim. As such, he contended that there is a specific bar created under Section 53 read with Section 2(14) of the ESI Act, and he is not entitled for any relief under any other law. 8. Section 53 of the ESI Act reads as follows: “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 - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010261032016 NC: 2026:KHC:36747 MFA No. 2678 of 2016 C/W MFA No. 5594 of 2016 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.” 9. Therefore, this Court finds that the award of the Tribunal in granting an amount of Rs.2,13,592/- with interest to the claimant, is not on the proper appreciation of facts and law, and is liable to be set aside. 10. In the result, M.F.A. No.2678 of 2016 filed by the insurance company is allowed and M.F.A. No.5594 of 2016 for enhancement is dismissed. 11. The amount already deposited by the insurance company is to be transferred to the Tribunal and is to be refunded to them. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1