Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1096 (KAR)

C. P. SUNDAR RAJ v. NETHRAVATHY

2015-09-15

B.S.PATIL

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. Appellant is employer of deceased Parameshwarappa. He has filed this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 challenging the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation awarding compensation in a sum of Rs.3,17,290/along with interest at 7.5% p.a. with effect from 07.06.2007 till realization. 2. Facts involved disclose that Parameshwarappa met with an accident when he was traveling from Kadur to Arasikere in Train No.228. Claimants are the dependents of the deceased being his wife and minor child. On the fateful day, deceased was traveling in the train. He lost balance and fell down from the moving train due to sudden jerk and jolt of the train. On account of the fall, he sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. 3. Claim Petition was filed contending inter alia that the accident arose out of and during the course of employment of the deceased with the appellant herein and hence, claimants being dependents of the deceased were entitled for compensation. The Commissioner has found that indeed deceased Parameshwarappa was working as a clerk under the appellant and died in an accident that arose out of and during the course of his employment. 4. The main contention urged by Sri V.S.Naik, learned counsel for the appellant is that claimants – respondents herein had already filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, in O.A.No.91/2007 and the Tribunal by its judgment dated 14.08.2009 awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.4,00,000/to the very claimants by recording a finding that deceased was a bonafide passenger in the train and died in an untoward incident. A copy of the order dated 14.08.2009 passed by the Tribunal is placed for the perusal of the Court. 5. He urges that a second claim by invoking the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, was not maintainable. Indeed institution of the claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal and the award passed therein is not disputed by Sri Sangamesh, learned counsel for the claimants – respondents. Therefore, this appeal has been admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: “Whether the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation awarding compensation to the claimants again under the provisions of the Workmen’s Act in the wake of the award passed under the provisions of Railways Act, 1989 (Act No.24 of 1989) by the Railway Claims Tribunal is tenable in law? 6. 6. As per Section 128 of the Railways Act, 1989, right of any person to claim compensation under Section 124 or Section 124A is not affected by the mere fact that the claimant had any right under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (Act No.8 of 1923) or any other law for the time being in force to claim compensation, but no person shall be entitled to claim compensation more than once in respect of the same accident. In other words, if the claimants have already claimed compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and received the same, they cannot maintain a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal under the Railways Act, 1989. Similarly on the same logic, it follows that if a claim has been already instituted before the Railways Claims Tribunal under the Railways Act by the workman or the dependents of the workman for compensation under the provisions of the Railways Act, then they cannot be permitted to make another claim in respect of same accident under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act to secure compensation yet again. 7. In addition, in the present case, what has been awarded under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is less than the one awarded under the Railways Act. When the claimant has got option to proceed against the employer or any other statutory body under different provisions of law, he has to make a choice. Indeed, in this case, dependents of the workman had instituted the claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal prior to the institution of the present proceedings under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Railway Claims Tribunal passed the order as back as on 14.08.2009 in a case instituted in the year 2007. Suppressing the same, a fresh claim has been instituted before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and an award has been passed. In a similar circumstance, in the case of SMT.ZAIBUNNISA Vs. THE DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HUBLI – AIR 1965 MYSORE 306 (Vol.52, C.80), a Division Bench of this Court has held that where a person has recovered compensation under Section 82A of the Railways Act for loss occasioned by a railway accident, he or in case of his death, his heirs are not entitled to compensation in respect of the same accident once again under Workmen’s Compensation Act or under any other law creating a right to such compensation. 8. 8. In the light of the above and in view of the admitted fact that claimants have received compensation by instituting a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, a fresh claim invoking provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, cannot be maintained. Hence, this appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The claim petition filed under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, is dismissed.