Under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a claimant cannot pursue compensation for a motor accident under both the Motor Vehicles Act and the Employees' Compensation Act; opting for one forum and pursuing it to final judgment precludes initiating proceedings in the other.

CAV JUDGMENT

1. 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 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 The said judgment was challenged in MFA No.7032 of 2022 by the claimants, but later, they have withdrawn the appeal on 25.09.2023 on the ground that they have already agitating another claim petition in MVC No.504 of 2022.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 Challenging the dismissal order, the claimants preferred an appeal in MFA No.7032 of 2022 and the same was withdrawn by the claimants, but the said evidence was not considered by the Tribunal.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 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 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 ques