- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:520 WP No. 58156 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 58156 OF 2018 (GM-AC) BETWEEN: SRI M R VIJAYA KUMAR SON OF M.T. RAJASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, MUNICIPALITY CONTRACTOR, RESIDENT OF BESIDE KGID BUILDING, HOLALKERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N.R. RANGE GOWDA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RADHAMMA WIFE OF LATE RANGANATHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 2. KUM. R. ANITHA D/O LATE RANGANATHA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS 3. SRI. SATHYAVELU SON OF LATE RANGANATHA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 4. R. VINOD KUMAR SON OF LATE RANGANATHA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE ALL R/AT NO.125, ASHRAYA YOJANE Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:520 WP No. 58156 of 2018 FIRST LAYOUT, KAVADIGARAHATTI VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 577 501. 5. SMT. GOWRAMMA WIFE OF LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OWNER OF TRACTOR-TRAILER BEARING NO.KA-16-2453-2454. RESIDENT OF NEHRUNAGAR, NEHRU NAGAR, HOLALKERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 6. THE COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA MUNICIPALITY OFFICE OF TOWN MUNICIPALITY, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. SHASHIDHARA.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. S. MAHESH., ADVOCATE FOR R6; R5- SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2018 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT CHITRADURGA, IN MVC NO.278/2017 ON I.A.NO.2 FILED BY R-1 AT ANNEXURE-J, AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO QUASH/DISMISS THE CLAIM PETITION IN MVC NO.278/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. SRNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT CHITRADURGA BY ALLOWING APPLICATION FILED BY THE R-1 UNDER SECTION 53 OF ESI ACT, AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:520 WP No. 58156 of 2018 ORAL ORDER Present petition is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 14.11.2018 passed in MVC No.278/2017 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chitradurga (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 53 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ('ESI Act' for short) r/w Section 151 of CPC has been rejected. 2. Respondents No.1 to 4 herein being the legal representatives of one Ranganath who was the erstwhile employee of the petitioner herein have filed the above petition in MVC No.278/2017 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ('MV Act' for short) seeking compensation in view of his death stated to have been caused on account of a road traffic accident that had occurred on 25.09.2012 involving a tractor trailer bearing Registration No.KA-16, 2453-54 which belonged to respondent No.5 herein. An application under Section 53 of the ESI Act came to be filed by the petitioner herein seeking dismissal of the said petition on the premise that the respondents No.1 to 4 were legal representatives of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:520 WP No. 58156 of 2018 said deceased Ranganath were paid compensation/amount under the provisions of ESI Act. It is contented that since the respondents No.1 to 4 being the legal representatives of the deceased Ranganath have already been paid/compensated, filing of petition under Section 166 of MV Act by them is barred under Section 53 of the ESI Act. Therefore, petitioner has sought for dismissal of the said petition. 3. By the impugned order Tribunal negated the said contention and consequently rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition, submitted that the Tribunal has not adverted to the provisions of Section 53 of the ESI Act in its proper perspective which clearly bars an application to be filed under any other provisions of law if the compensation was already paid under the ESI Act. He submits since there is an express bar provided under Section 53, the Tribunal ought not to have rejected the application giving rise to the present petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:520 WP No. 58156 of 2018 5. In response, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4 the legal representatives of deceased employee referring to Section 61 of the ESI Act, submit that Section 53 has to be read in the light of the provisions of Section 61 where the bar is provided only to avail the benefits provided under the Act and the same does not bar availing benefit under any other provisions of the Act. He submits that respondents No.1 to 4 legal representative of deceased Ranganath have every right to seek compensation under the Provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. Making claim under the Motor Vehicles Act would not in any manner impede their right to seek compensation even under the ESI Act as the same operates under different domain. Hence, he submitted that the Tribunal has committed no error in rejecting the application. 6. Heard. Perused records. 7. Section 53 of the ESI Act reads us 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:520 WP No. 58156 of 2018 otherwise, in respect of an employment injury sustained by the insured person as an employee under this Act." 8. Perusal of which manifestly makes it clear that the bar contemplated thereunder is seeking compensation or damage "in respect of an employment injury" sustained by the injured person as an employee under ESI Act. The same cannot under any circumstances construed as seeking benefit or compensation under other legislation such as Motor Vehicles Act, as the same does not pertain or cover the compensation payable arising out of employment injuries. Needless to state, the determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is an account of road traffic accident and consideration of aspect of negligence or otherwise, as provided thereunder, which cannot be held or construed to arising out of employer- employee relationship. 9. Provision of Section 53 have been further clarified by Section 61 of ESI Act, which reads as under; "61. Bar of benefits under other enactments- When a person is entitled to any of the benefits provided by this Act, he shall not be entitled to receive any similar benefit admissible under the provisions of any other enactment." - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:520 WP No. 58156 of 2018 10. The said provision further clarifies that the claim for the benefits which arise under the Act cannot be made under any other enactment. Thus, a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be termed as a petition filed to seek benefit provided under the ESI Act. 11. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has committed no error or irregularity warranting interference at the hands of this Court in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, petition lacks merit and the same stands dismissed. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24