( 1 ) THIS case reflects the sorry state of affairs in conducting motor vehicles cases before the Motor Vehicles claims Tribunal. This court cannot but observe that Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal are constituted for the purpose of providing relief to those who suffer injury or lose their bread earing member. Of late the laudable object of providing rightful compensation to rightful person is given a complete go by and instead several unjustifiable acts are happening in these matters. Time has come for this court to remind all those who are in charge of the claim compensation cases to be vigilant to arrest unlawful gain by unlawful persons in legal forums.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS in this petition 18 challenging the judgment and award passed by the District Judge and MACT, Gagad in MVC No. 42/2000. According to petition averments, petitioner mother namely Smt Ningavva was the wife of Sri Bsssppa Piddansvar who was working as Head Mastrl with R-S. The mother of the petitioner died in 1997. On 30-5-1998, at about 1-45 PM while on duty the father of the petitioner died in an accident caused between the vehicle of respondent No. 5 and another vehicle. The petitioners being the sole heirs of deceased Basappa filed claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation in WCA NO. 126/1998.

( 3 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 claiming to be the wife and daughter of Sri Basappa Piddanavar filed a claim petition in terms of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Act in MVC No. 42/2000. It is stated in the petition that the factum of respondents 1 and 2 filing a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal was not within their knowledge. On coming to know of the same, an IA was filed before the Workmens Commissioner to implead respondents 1 and 2. They were also impleaded on 20-12-2000 and were represented by their counsel. They took time to file objections before the Commissioner abjections were not filed and the matter is still pending before the Commissioner. However, according to petition averments the contesting respondents 1 and 2 suppressing the factum of another case in respect or the very same accident pending on the file of the Workmens Compensation Commissioner have obtained an award in the claim petition filed before the MACT, Gadag, in their favour. The tribunal in the award has granted a sum of Rs. l,74,700/- with interest at 61. This award is questioned in this petition.

( 4 ) NOTICE was issued to respondent. The matter was listed from time to time. The matter was listed on 15-9-2003. No objections were filed at that point of time. This Court after noticing the facts of the case directed the other respondents to file their respective Affidavits. This court also called for records. Accordingly statements have been filed after an order by this court by R-6 namely the New India Insurance Company and a180 the contesting respondent.

( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel or the parties.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the material facts to contend that respondents 1 and 2 are not the legal representatives of the deceased. His further submission is that a claim petition is already pending in respect of this very accident and contesting respondents are parties to those proceedings. Suppressing the factum of pending proceedings before the Workmens Compensation Commissioner, they have chosen to obtain an award to the detriment of these petitioners and at the cost of the Insurance Company. He has placed all the documents placed before the workmens compensation commissioner as well as before the MACT, Respondent No. 6. The divisional Manager has filed an affidavit explaining the lapse in not bringing it to the notice of the MACT with regard pending proceedings before the Workmens compensation commissioner. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent would say that his clients are the real legal representatives. His contention is that this petition not maintainable in the light of Ii remedy by way of a Miscellaneous First appe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document