- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23685 MFA No. 1898 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4687 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1898 OF 2025 (MV-D) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4687 OF 2025 (MV-D) IN MFA No. 1898/2025 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, B.M. ROAD, VENKATESHWARA BUILDING SUBHASH SQUARE, HASSAN TOWN, HASSAN NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH AND 6TH FLOOR, KRUSHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 BY ITS MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. H C VRUSHABHENDRAIAH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LAKSHMI D/O SANNAPPAGOWDA W/O HARISH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O OLD MIRLE VILLAGE, K.R. NAGAR TALUK, MYSURE DISTRICT -571602 R Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23685 MFA No. 1898 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4687 of 2025 2. THARA D/O SANNAPPAGOWDA W/O.HARISH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O OLD MIRLE VILLAGE, K.R.NAGAR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 602 3. R. KANAGARAJ S/O RANGASWAMY OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING REG. NO. TN-43-D-1108, NO. 26, MATTUKADAL ROAD, KARAMADAL, COIMBATORE TAMIL NADU - 641 104 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHESHADRI B T., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2, SRI. K.S. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.16.12.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.504/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, HASSAN, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.11,38,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 6 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT. IN MFA NO. 4687/2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAKSHMI, D/O. LATE. SANNAPPAGOWDA, W/O HARISH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 2. SMT. THARA, D/O. LATE. SANNAPPAGOWDA W/O. MAHADEV AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23685 MFA No. 1898 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4687 of 2025 NO. OLD MIRLE VILLAGE, K.R. NAGAR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT, KARNATAKA ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHESHADRI .B .T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KANAGARAJ. R. S/O RANGASWAMY, OWNER OF THE LORRY BEARING REG.NO.TN-43-D-1108, NO.26, MATTUKADAI ROAD, KARAMADAL, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU-641104, MOBILE NO.9443566327 C/O DODDABHAVI JADAYAMPALAYAM POST, SIRUMUGAL, METUPALAYAM, TAMIL NADU 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, B.M. ROAD, VENKATESHWARA BUILDING, SUBHASH SQUARE, HASSAN TOWN, HASSAN (POLICY NO. 1717003117P101501810 VALID FROM 23-04-2017 TO 22-04-2018 POLICY ISSUED AT COIMBATORE TALUK) ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR K S., ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. H.C. VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.173(1) OF MV ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.16.12.2024 PASSED IN MVC NO.504/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23685 MFA No. 1898 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4687 of 2025 SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 15.04.2026 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 M.F.A. No.1898 of 2025 is filed by insurance company and M.F.A. No.4687 of 2025 is filed by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 16.12.2024 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Hassan, in MVC No.504 of 2022. One Kengamma, met with an accident on 26.06.2017 and died subsequently. Her daughters filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.11,38,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has preferred M.F.A. No.1898 of 2025 mainly contending that, initially, a claim petition was filed under Workmen - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23685 MFA No. 1898 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4687 of 2025 Compensation Act in ECA No.36 of 2018, before Principal Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner, Hassan by the husband of deceased Kengamma and respondent Nos.1 and 2 (claimants) herein. But, during the pendency of the proceedings, the husband died and respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein continued in the said proceedings before the ECA Court and it was dismissed on merits by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation on 23.11.2021. The said judgment was challenged in MFA No.7032 of 2022 by the claimants, but later, they have withdrawn the appeal on 25.09.2023 on the ground that they have already agitating another claim petition in MVC No.504 of 2022. It is contended that the Tribunal has committed serious error in fastening liability on the insurance company. The Tribunal erred in holding that there was rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. During cross examination, the claimants admitted that they filed ECA petition before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and it was dismissed on merits. Challenging the dismissal order, the claimants preferred an appeal in MFA No.7032 of 2022 and the same was withdrawn by the claimants, but the said evidence was not considered by the Tribunal. It is further contended that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23685 MFA No. 1898 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4687 of 2025 deceased was not a coolie/loader at the time of the accident and she was not an employee under the insured. As such, the insurance company need not indemnify the owner of the vehicle. The compensation granted by the Tribunal is improper, unjust and is on higher side. Thus, requested this Court to set aside the order of the Tribunal. 3. M.F.A. No.4687 of 2025 is filed by the claimants against the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, contending that the Tribunal has rightly held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.TN-43-D-1108. At the time of accident, Kengamma was hale and healthy. She was doing loading and unloading labour work earning Rs.18,000/- per month plus other bata(bonus). But, the Tribunal has taken her notional income only as Rs.10,510/- per month as per the notification of the Government of Karnataka and deducted one third towards her personal expenses. The grant of compensation under the heads loss of estate, consortium and general expenses is on lower side. As per the Exhibit P10, Kengamma was aged 47 years, but the Tribunal considered her - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23685 MFA No. 1898 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4687 of 2025 age as 55 years and it is to be modified. Entire family was depending on her love and affection, support and earnings. Therefore, requested for enhancement of the compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of A. MANAVALAGAN VS. A.KRISHNAMURTHY AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2004 KAR 3268, wherein it was held that when legal heir is not a dependent on the deceased, the question of awarding any amount under the head of loss of dependency would not arise as there was no financial dependency. The basis for awarding compensation is the loss of dependency, that is loss of what was contributed by the deceased to such claimants. The learned counsel submitted that in Para No. 20 of the said Judgment, several citations were given regarding the savings of a person. Considering the dependency on the deceased, it was stated that if the family of deceased consists of wife and children, one third will be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. If the family of the deceased is larger including dependent parents apart from wife and children, he will spend more amount. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23685 MFA No. 1898 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4687 of 2025 Therefore, one fifth will be deducted instead of one third. So also, if the deceased was a bachelor and the parents are depending on him, 50% will be deducted towards his personal expenses. If the deceased is survived by an educated employed wife earning an amount almost equal to that of her husband and if each was maintaining a separate establishment, the question of loss of dependency does not arise. If the deceased is a bachelor and claimants are non-dependent brothers and sisters, with independent income, the position would be different. As the deceased did not have a family, the tendency would be to spend more amount towards himself and savings would be hardly 15%. Therefore, the said 15% of income is to be considered for the purpose of calculation. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DEEP SHIKHA AND ANOTHER VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS decided on 13.05.2025 in SLP (Civil) Nos.22265-22266 of 2018, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 13 of the judgment has held as under: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23685 MFA No. 1898 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4687 of 2025 13. Once a daughter is married, logical presumption is that she now has rights on her matrimonial household and is also financially supported by her husband or his family, unless proven otherwise. It is more than likely that her dependence on her natal family, including her mother has now ceased. Sections 166 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 focus on the financial relationship between the deceased and the Claimant. A married daughter may be considered a legal representative, as per Manjuri Bera, but she will not be eligible for loss of dependency compensation unless it is proven by the daughter that she was financially dependent on the deceased. Thus, it is clear from the record that Appellant No. 1 has failed to prove that she was being financially supported by her mother post marriage and hence cannot be said to be a dependent of her mother, the deceased.” 6. The learned counsel for insurance company further relied upon the judgment in the case of OGETI PEDDA RANGANNA Vs. ZALEKA BEE AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1970 ANDHRA PRADESH 124, wherein it was held as under: “Once a particular forum is chosen, claimant cannot choose another forum - Though application for compensation is not filed under Motor Vehicles Act, employer's remedy against insurer under contract of insurance is always available under general law. Workmens Compensation Act. 3. XXXX. In a case where there are two tribunals having concurrent jurisdiction, the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23685 MFA No. 1898 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4687 of 2025 claimant who is in the position of a plaintiff is the dominus litis and has the right to choose his own forum and he cannot be compelled to choose a forum which would be convenient to the defendant. Though the application for compensation is filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, the employer's remedy against the insurer under the contract of insurance is always available under the general law. I am not therefore inclined to accept this contention of the petitioner that the claimant should choose a particular forum which would be convenient to the opposite party.” 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. MASTAN AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2006 SC 577, it was held as under: “34. On the establishment of a Claims Tribunal in terms of Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the victim of a motor accident has a right to apply for compensation in terms of Section 166 of that Act before that Tribunal. On the establishment of the Claims Tribunal, the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a claim for compensation arising out of a motor accident, stands ousted by Section 175 of that Act. Until the establishment of the Tribunal, the claim had to be enforced through the civil court as a claim in tort. The exclusiveness of the jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is taken away by Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act in one instance, when the claim could also fall under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. That section provides that death or bodily injury arising out of a motor accident which may also give rise to a - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23685 MFA No. 1898 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4687 of 2025 claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, can be enforced through the authorities under that Act, the option in that behalf being with the victim or his representative. But Section 167 makes it clear that a claim could not be maintained under both the Acts. In other words, a claimant who becomes entitled to claim compensation under both the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Workmen's Compensation Act, because of a motor vehicle accident has the choice of proceeding under either of the Acts before the forum concerned. By confining the claim to the authority or the Tribunal under either of the Acts, the legislature has incorporated the concept of election of remedies, insofar as the claimant is concerned. In other words, he has to elect whether to make his claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The emphasis in the section that a claim cannot be made under both the enactments, is a further reiteration of the doctrine of election incorporated in the scheme for claiming compensation. The principle “where, either of the two alternative Tribunals are open to a litigant, each having jurisdiction over the matters in dispute, and he resorts for his remedy to one of such Tribunals in preference to the other, he is precluded, as against his opponent, from any subsequent recourse to the latter” (see R. V. Evans (1854) 3 E & B 363) is fully incorporated in the scheme of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, precluding the claimant who has invoked the Workmen's Compensation Act from having resort to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, except to the limited extent permitted therein. The claimant having resorted to the Workmen's - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23685 MFA No. 1898 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4687 of 2025 Compensation Act, is controlled by the provisions of that Act subject only to the exception recognised in Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 35. On the language of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and going by the principle of election of remedies, a claimant opting to proceed under the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot take recourse to or draw inspiration from any of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 other than what is specifically saved by Section 167 of the Act. Section 167 of the Act gives a claimant even under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the right to invoke the provisions of Chapter X of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Chapter X of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with what is known as “no fault” liability in case of an accident. Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 imposes a liability on the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation fixed therein, even if no fault is established against the driver or owner of the vehicle. Sections 141 and 142 deal with particular claims on the basis of no fault liability and Section 143 re-emphasises what is emphasised by Section 167 of the Act that the provisions of Chapter X of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, would apply even if the claim is made under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Section 144 of the Act gives the provisions of Chapter X of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 an overriding effect. 36. Coming to the facts of the case, the claimant has not chosen to withdraw his claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act before it reached the point of judgment, with a view to approach the Motor Accidents Claims - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23685 MFA No. 1898 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4687 of 2025 Tribunal. What he has done is to pursue his claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act till the award was passed and also to invoke a provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, not made applicable to claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The respondent claimant is not entitled to do so. The High Court was in error in holding that he is entitled to do so.” 8. Further, in the case of UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. MAMTA AND OTHERS reported in 2016(4) SCC 172, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “An appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act is essentially in the nature of first appeal alike Section 96 of the Code and, therefore, the High Court is equally under legal obligation to decide all issues arising in the case both on facts and law after appreciating the entire evidence.” 9. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has relied upon Provisions under Section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as follows. 167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases. - Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death of, or bodily injury - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23685 MFA No. 1898 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4687 of 2025 to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both. 10. The main contention of learned counsel for insurance company is that the claimants, initially, filed a claim petition under ECA Act in No.36 of 2018, which was dismissed on merits. Against the said order, the claimants preferred an appeal in MFA No.7032 of 2022, but later, they have withdrawn the appeal on 25.09.2023 on the ground that they have already agitating another claim petition in MVC No.504 of 2022. On 16.01.2024, the insurance company raised its objection before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal relied upon citation in the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. REKHABEN & OTHERS reported in (2017) 13 SCC 547 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that claims under Motor Vehicles Act and Employees' Compensation Act are independent remedies. Rejection of a claim under one statute does not bar for filing a claim under other Act. The Tribunal relying upon the said citation held that the remedies under Employees' Compensation Act and Motor Vehicles Act are distinct and independent. Claimants are at - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23685 MFA No. 1898 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4687 of 2025 liberty to choose between any of the remedies provided under different statutes and pursuing one remedy does not preclude them from filing under another statute unless explicitly barred. As such, rejection of claim under Employees' Compensation Act does not bar the claimant from filing present claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act. 11. The definition of dependent under Section 2(d) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1903, reads as under: “2. Definitions.— XXXX (d) "dependant" means any of the following relatives of deceased employee, namely:— (i) a widow, a minor legitimate or adopted son, an unmarried legitimate or adopted daughter or a widowed mother; and (ii) if wholly dependant on the earnings of the employee at the time of his death, a son or a daughter who has attained the age of 18 years and who is infirm; (iii) if wholly or in part dependant on the earnings of the employee at the time of his death,— (a) a widower, (b) a parent other than a widowed mother, (c) a minor illegitimate son, an unmarried illegitimate daughter or a - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23685 MFA No. 1898 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4687 of 2025 daughter legitimate or illegitimate or adopted if married and a minor or if widowed and a minor, (d) a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister if a minor, (e) a widowed daughter-in-law, (f) a minor child of a pre- deceased son, (g) a minor child of a pre- deceased daughter where no parent of the child is alive, or (h) a paternal grandparent if no parent of the employee is alive;” 12. Perusal of paragraph 14 of the Judgment in ECA No.36 of 2018, the Commissioner has observed as under: 14. As per Section 2(d)(1) of the Employee's Compensation Act, a widow, a minor (legitimate or adopted) son, and unmarried (legitimate or adopted) daughter or a widowed mother are dependents within the meaning of said section. As per this provision, married daughter is not dependent. As per Section 2(d)(iii)(c) of the said Act, a minor illegitimate son, an unmarried illegitimate daughter or a daughter (legitimate or illegitimate or adopted) if married and a minor or if widowed and minor, if wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the employee at the time of his death becomes "dependent" within the meaning of that Section. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has stressed the above point and argued that even the married daughter becomes dependent under the said provision. It is pertinent to point out in this - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23685 MFA No. 1898 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4687 of 2025 context that, the said provision indicates that the daughter should be married and a minor and it goes to show that minor married daughter becomes dependent under the above provision. Moreover, as already observed. married daughter is excluded under Section 2(d)(i) of the above Act.” 13. The Commissioner also observed that claimants failed to prove that they were dependent on the arrears of their deceased mother at the time of death. PW1, in the cross examination, has admitted that she along with her sister are residing in their matrimonial house. There is no specific averment that petitioners were depending upon the earning of their deceased mother. As such, they were not dependent as per Section 2-d(iii) of the said Act. Hence, they are not entitled for any compensation from the respondent-insurance company. 14. The Commissioner granted reasonable opportunity to both sides for addressing the case and for arguments, and on appreciation of entire evidence including the definition of dependent under Section 2(d) of the Employees' Compensation Act, and also the fact that there was no evidence to show that the claimants were dependent on the income of their deceased - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23685 MFA No. 1898 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4687 of 2025 mother held that they are not entitled for any compensation. The Section clearly reads that claimants are entitled to opt between any of the forums. They can either file claim petition under Employees Compensation Act or under Motor Vehicles Act, but they cannot claim compensation under both the Acts. 15. The claimants contended that no amount was granted to them under Employees' Compensation Act. As such, they filed claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act. When once they opted one forum and they have not withdrawn the petition before the judgment on merits, they cannot again choose another forum, and it amounts to abuse of process of law and contrary to the provisions of Section 167 of the M.V. Act. Therefore, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts properly and erred in granting compensation, therefore the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 16. In the result, the following order is passed: MFA No.1898 of 2025 filed by insurance company is allowed and the order of the Tribunal in MVC 504 of 2022 dated 16.12.2024 is set aside. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23685 MFA No. 1898 of 2025 C/W MFA No. 4687 of 2025 In view of the judgment of this Court in MFA No.1898 of 2025, the question of granting enhanced compensation does not arise. As such, MFA No.4687 of 2025 filed by claimants for enhancement is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 84