JUDGMENT MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, Section 168 - Accident Death of employee - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Section 30(1) - Death of employee cleaner of the vehicle Claim under Workmen's Compensation Act - Multiple claims by claimant's - Suppression of fact of earlier proceedings Award of exemplary cost - Parents of deceased sought compensation for loss of life of their son - Claim filed before Commissioner - Contended that the deceased fell down from lorry and suffered grievous injury and died – Commissioner awarded compensation - Liability was fixed on owner of vehicle - Aggrieved claimants filed appeal alleging that insurer is liable to pay compensation and not insured Dismissed as not pressed - During pendency of appeal claimants filed another claim petition before the very same Commissioner without disclosing earlier award passed and without disclosing the dismissal of appeal - The second application was allowed and compensation sanctioned Insurance Company questioned the judgment and award Contended that the claim is misconceived and fraud on the Commissioner - Filing claim application for second time without disclosing the earlier round of litigation amounts to fraud - When earlier award been confirmed the second award is without jurisdiction - Held - Records shows that very same claimants filed claim petition twice - When appeal pending in respect of earlier petition they filed one more application before Commissioner - Since filing of earlier petition and appeal were not brought to notice of Commissioner passed second award fixing liability on insurer - Suppression of facts before Court amounts to fraud - Once award passed and confirmed, claimant had no right to present another claim petition - No jurisdiction vested with Commissioner to determine compensation on basis of second claim - After having disputed earlier application - Appeal allowed - Exemplary cost was levied on claimants. Subhash B. Adi, J., Held: The deceased fell down from the lorry and suffered grievous injury and despite the treatment, he could not survive. The claimants claiming to be the dependents on the deceased sought for compensation for the loss of the life of their son. The Commissioner on appreciation of the evidence awarded compensation of Rs. 2,11,790/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. As against the said judgment and award, this appeal has been filed. . . . . . . The Commissioner on appreciation of the evidence awarded compensation of Rs. 2,11,790/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. As against the said judgment and award, this appeal has been filed. . . . . . . Insurance Company submitted that, the claim petition filed by the claimants before the Commissioner is misconceived and is a fraud on the Commissioner. The very claimants had earlier filed a claim petition inter alia claiming that, deceased was working as cleaner in the very same lorry. The Commissioner on the basis of the earlier application by judgment awarded compensation of Rs. 2,11,790/-. However, the liability was fixed on the owner of the vehicle. The claimants being aggrieved by the said judgment and award had filed M.F.A. inter alia alleging that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation and not the insured. However, the said appeal was not pressed and same was dismissed as not pressed. He submitted that, during the pendency of the said appeal, the claimants had filed another claim petition for the very same relief before the very same Commissioner without disclosing of the earlier award passed by the Commissioner, without disclosing that the appeal filed against the said award and its dismissal, by suppressing the relevant material facts and also by misrepresenting that they are entitled for compensation had filed a claim petition and the said claim petition of the claimants amounts to fraud on the Commissioner and submitted that, after the earlier award having been confirmed, the present award is one without jurisdiction and submitted that, the fact of earlier proceedings was also not brought to the notice of the Commissioner by any of the parties. . . . . . . The records shows that, the very same claimants had filed a claim petition based on the same, an award was also passed by the Commissioner except the fixing of the liability on the insurer. When an appeal was filed by the very same claimants, when the said appeal was pending, it appears that, without disclosing the award passed and the appeal filed, the claimants filed one more claim petition before the same Commissioner. When an appeal was filed by the very same claimants, when the said appeal was pending, it appears that, without disclosing the award passed and the appeal filed, the claimants filed one more claim petition before the same Commissioner. Since the filing of the earlier claim petition and filing of M.F.A. were not brought to the notice of the Commissioner, the Commissioner prima facie believing the claim petition and the evidence of the claimants, by the impugned award has now awarded compensation fixing the liability on the insurer. In both the awards, the same compensation has been awarded. . . . . . . Suppression of material facts before the Court or the authority amounts to fraud on the Court and the proceedings and any order passed as a result of fraud or misrepresentation would be set at naught at any stage of the proceedings and this is an appeal directly against the award, which is passed as a result of misrepresentation, cannot be sustained. Once the award is passed and confirmed by this Court, the claimant had no right to present another claim petition nor there is any jurisdiction vested in the Commissioner to determine the compensation on the basis of second application after having earlier disposed of the application. May be in the ignorance of the earlier proceedings, the Commissioner might have decided the proceeding. However, the fact remains that the claimants, who were parties and well-aware of the earlier proceedings, have filed another claim petition by playing fraud and stating that the deceased was a cleaner. This appeal deserved to be allowed, but it has to be allowed with exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the claimants. (paras 2, 4, 5 and 6) The Court, delivered the following: JUDGMENT Appeal is by the Insurance "Company, questioning the judgment and award dated 6-2-2002 in No. KaAaThu:KaPaKa:CR-30/2001 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tumkur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner:). 2. 10,000/- to be paid by the claimants. (paras 2, 4, 5 and 6) The Court, delivered the following: JUDGMENT Appeal is by the Insurance "Company, questioning the judgment and award dated 6-2-2002 in No. KaAaThu:KaPaKa:CR-30/2001 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Tumkur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner:). 2. Respondents 1 and 2 and deceased-respondent 3 had filed a claim petition before the Commissioner on the allegation that, son of respondents 1 and 2 viz., one Krishnamurthy was the driver of lorry bearing No. KA-16/9786, while he was driving the said vehicle on 18-7-1997, when the said vehicle reached near Naganur, the said lorry met with an accident as a result of which, the deceased fell down from the lorry and suffered grievous injury and despite the treatment, he could not survive. The claimants-respondents 1 and 2 claiming to be the dependents on the deceased sought for compensation for the loss of the life of their son. The Commissioner on appreciation of the evidence awarded compensation of Rs. 2,11,790/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. As against the said judgment and award, this appeal has been filed. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents. 4. Sri A.M. Venkatesh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that, the claim petition filed by the claimants before the Commissioner is misconceived and is a fraud on the Commissioner. The very claimants had earlier filed a claim petition in No. KaAaThu:KaPaKa:CR-75/1997 inter alia claiming that, respondents 1 and 2's son was working as cleaner in the very same lorry bearing No. KA-16/9786 and the said lorry met with an accident on 18-7-1997 and alleged that, they are the defendants. The Commissioner on the basis of the earlier application by judgment dated 31-1-2001 awarded compensation of Rs. 2,11,790/-. However, the liability was fixed on the owner of the vehicle. The claimants being aggrieved by the said judgment and award dated 31-1-2001 had filed M.FA No. 1429 of 2001 inter alia alleging that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation and not the insured. However, on 12-1-2004, the said appeal was not pressed and same was dismissed as not pressed. The claimants being aggrieved by the said judgment and award dated 31-1-2001 had filed M.FA No. 1429 of 2001 inter alia alleging that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation and not the insured. However, on 12-1-2004, the said appeal was not pressed and same was dismissed as not pressed. He submitted that, during the pendency of the said appeal, the claimants-respondents 1 and 2 had filed another claim petition for the very same relief before the very same Commissioner in KaAaThu:KaPaKa:CR-30/2001 without disclosing of the earlier award passed by the Commissioner, without disclosing that the appeal filed against the said award and its dismissal, by suppressing the relevant material facts and also by misrepresenting that they are entitled for compensation had filed a claim petition and the said claim petition of the claimants amounts to fraud on the Commissioner and submitted that, after the earlier award dated 31-1-2001 having been confirmed by this Court in M.F.A. No. 1429 of 2001, the present award dated 6-2-2002 is one without jurisdiction and submitted that, the fact of earlier proceedings was also not brought to the notice of the Commissioner by any of the parties. 5. It is one classic clear case of fraud committed by the respondents, claiming to be the legal heirs of the deceased employee. From the records produced by the learned Counsel for the appellant, it shows that, the very same claimants had filed a claim petition, which was numbered as KaAaThu:KaPaKa:CR-75/1997 and the date of accident, lorry number, owner of the lorry and the person died in the said accident is same and based on the same, an award was also passed by the Commissioner except the fixing of the liability on the insurer. When an appeal was filed by the very same claimants before this Court in M.F.A. No. 1429 of 2001, when the said appeal was pending, it appears that, without disclosing the award passed and the appeal filed, the claimants filed one more claim petition before the same Commissioner. Since the filing of the earlier claim petition and filing of M.F.A. were not brought to the notice of the Commissioner, the Commissioner prima facie believing the claim petition and the evidence of the claimants, by the impugned award has now awarded compensation of Rs. 2,11,790/- fixing the liability on the insurer. In both the awards, the same compensation has been awarded. 6. 2,11,790/- fixing the liability on the insurer. In both the awards, the same compensation has been awarded. 6. Suppression of material facts before the Court or the authority amounts to fraud on the Court and the proceedings and any order passed as a result of fraud or misrepresentation would be set at naught at any stage of the proceedings and this is an appeal directly against the award, which is passed as a result of misrepresentation, in my opinion, cannot be sustained. Once the award is passed and confirmed by this Court, the claimant had no right to present another claim petition nor there is any jurisdiction vested in the Commissioner to determine the compensation on the basis of second application after having earlier disposed of the application. May be in the ignorance of the earlier proceedings, the Commissioner might have decided the proceeding. However, the fact remains that the claimants, who were parties and well-aware of the earlier proceedings, have filed another claim petition by playing fraud and stating that the deceased was a cleaner. In my opinion, not only this appeal deserved to be allowed, but it has to be allowed with exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the claimants. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 6-2-2002 in No. KaAaThu:KaPaKa:CR-30/2001 on the file of the Commissioner for the Workmen's Compensation, Tumkur is hereby set aside. The claimants are liable to pay the cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant. The amount in deposit before this Court he refunded to the appellant.