The Divisional Manager, Vs Jayanna S/O Narshimappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

The Divisional Manager, Vs Jayanna S/O Narshimappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

All six appeals of the insurance company dismissed; the judgment and order dated 15.06.2012 of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Haveri, in W.C.A./N.F.Nos.33-38 of 2011 confirmed; the amount in deposit by the appellant to be transmitted to the Commissioner concerned for disbursement along with TCR; fees to be paid to the Amicus Curiae as per rules; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether, once claim petitions are disposed of by default, non-prosecution, withdrawal or not pressing, subsequent petitions filed by the very same claimants in respect of the very same accident are maintainable? +1 more

Court's answer

The bar in Order IX Rule 9 CPC operates only against a fresh suit on the very same cause of action; where the cause of action is new or continuing and the legal right is still subsisting, a second petition can be filed.

Ratio / Principle

In claim petitions arising out of motor vehicle accidents or employment injuries/death, the claim for compensation and the cause of action to prefer the claim petition are continuing ones; the Motor Vehicles Act, the Employees Compensation Act and allied statutes are social beneficial legislatures.

Key takeaways

Technicality of law shall not come in the way of giving substantial justice; the judicial approach towards prosecution of such claim petitions is liberal.ratio¶138
Dismissal of a claim petition otherwise than on merits is not a bar to filing a fresh petition, irrespective of whether the first petition was dismissed, withdrawn, or dismissed for default.ratio¶138
Since the cause of action for a compensation claim is a recurring one, the claimant/plaintiff need not obtain the Court's permission to withdraw the claim filed in the previous petition; a second petition is maintainable till the legal right is decided.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Workmen's Compensation — Maintainability of second claim petition after earlier dismissal as 'not pressed'. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. appealed against six awards dated 15.06.2012 by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Haveri (W.C.A./N.F.Nos.33-38 of 2011), contending that since the claimants' earlier petitions (No.474/2004) before the Commissioner, Chitradurga were dismissed as not pressed without liberty, the fresh 2011 petitions were barred by Order IX Rule 9 CPC. Held: Order IX Rule 9 precludes a fresh suit only on the very same cause of action; for compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Employees Compensation Act and allied social beneficial legislation, the claim and its cause of action are continuing/recurring until adjudicated on merits; hence dismissal of a prior petition otherwise than on merits — by default, withdrawal, or as not pressed, even without liberty — does not bar a fresh petition, nor is Court permission to withdraw necessary. The three Karnataka HC decisions relied on by the insurer were distinguished as not addressing the definition of 'cause of action' and resting on different factual matrices. Substantial questions of law answered: No.1 in the affirmative (subsequent petitions maintainable), No.2 in the negative (no interference). Appeals dismissed; the Haveri awards, with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition till realization, stand confirmed; deposit to be transmitted to the Commissioner for disbursement with TCR.

1 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

R

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24762 OF 2012 (WC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24763 OF 2012 (WC) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24764 OF 2012 (WC) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24765 OF 2012 (WC) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24766 OF 2012 (WC) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24767 OF 2012 (WC)

IN MFA NO. 24762 OF 2012:

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., HUBBALLI.

… APPELLANT

(BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE.)

MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH

Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.08.14 12:07:12 +0530

AND:

JAYANNA S/O NARSHIMAPPA, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: CLEANER NOW NIL, R/O: GUDGOLLARHATTI, TQ: HIREUR, NOW RESIDING AT RANEBENNUR.

SRI. N. MAHANTESH S/O NINGAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY, R/O: TIRUMALAPUR KUBARHALLI, DIST: CHITRADURGA.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ABHINANDAN HIREMATH, AMICUS CURIAE.)

2 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.06.2012, PASSED IN W.C.NO.33/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMAN’S COMPENSATION, HAVERI AND ETC.,.

IN MFA NO. 24763 OF 2012:

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., HUBBALLI.

… APPELLANT

(BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE.)

AND:

LINGRAJ S/O BASANNA, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HAMAL NOW NIL, R/O: VENUGOPALGUDDDA, NOW R/O: RANEBENNUR.

SRI. N. MAHANTESH S/O NINGAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY, R/O: TIRUMALAPUR KUBARHALLI, DIST: CHITRADURGA.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ABHINANDAN HIREMATH, AMICUS CURIAE.)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.06.2012, PASSED IN W.C.NO.34/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMAN’S COMPENSATION, HAVERI AND ETC.,.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

IN MFA NO. 24764 OF 2012:

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., HUBBALLI.

… APPELLANT

(BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE.)

AND:

JAILINGAPPA S/O SANNCHITAPPA, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HAMAL NOW NIL, R/O: GUDDGOLLARHATTI, NOW R/O: RANEBENNUR.

SRI N. MAHANTESH S/O NINGAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY, R/O: TIRUMALAPUR KUBARHALLI, DIST: CHITRADURGA.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ABHINANDAN HIREMATH, AMICUS CURIAE.)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.06.2012, PASSED IN W.C.NO.35/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMAN’S COMPENSATION, HAVERI AND ETC.,.

IN MFA NO. 24765 OF 2012:

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., HUBBALLI.

… APPELLANT

(BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE.)

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

AND:

RAMESH S/O CHITAPPA, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HAMAL NOW NIL, R/O: GUDDGOLLARHATTI, NOW R/O: RANEBENNUR.

SRI N. MAHANTESH S/O NINGAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY, R/O: TIRUMALAPUR KUBARHALLI, DIST: CHITRADURGA.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ABHINANDAN HIREMATH, AMICUS CURIAE.)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.06.2012, PASSED IN W.C.NO.36/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMAN’S COMPENSATION, HAVERI AND ETC.,.

IN MFA NO. 24766 OF 2012:

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., HUBBALLI.

… APPELLANT

(BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE.)

AND:

CHITAPPA S/O CHITAPPA, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: HAMAL NOW NIL, R/O: GUDDGOLLARHATTI, NOW R/O: RANEBENNUR.

SRI N. MAHANTESH S/O NINGAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY,

5 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

R/O: TIRUMALAPUR KUBARHALLI, DIST: CHITRADURGA.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ABHINANDAN HIREMATH, AMICUS CURIAE.)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.06.2012, PASSED IN W.C.NO.37/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMAN’S COMPENSATION, HAVERI AND ETC.,.

IN MFA NO. 24767 OF 2012:

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., HUBBALLI.

… APPELLANT

(BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE.)

AND:

CHANDRAPPA S/O NINGAPPA, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HAMAL NOW NIL, R/O: TIRUMALPUR, NOW R/O: RANEBENNUR.

SRI. N. MAHANTESH S/O NINGAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY, R/O: TIRUMALAPUR KUBARHALLI, DIST: CHITRADURGA.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ABHINANDAN HIREMATH, AMICUS CURIAE.)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 15.06.2012, PASSED IN W.C.NO.38/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMAN’S COMPENSATION, HAVERI AND ETC.,.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

These appeals are filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and order dated 15.06.2012, passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Haveri, in W.C.A./N.F.No.33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 of 2011, respectively, thereby, the claim petitions are allowed ordering payment of compensation by the appellant/insurance company.

It is the case of claimants that on 10.07.2004 the claimants were being cleaner and hamal under the employment of respondent No.2 owner of lorry have been instructed by the employer/respondent No.2 to go in the lorry bearing No.KA-02/A-9163 for loading bricks from Ishwargere to Hiriyuru. At that time due to rash and

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

negligent driving of the lorry, the lorry was toppled down and the claimants have sustained injuries.

Initially the claimants had filed claim petition before the learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner (‘Commissioner’ for short), Chitradurga. But the claimants have not pressed the said petitions and the said petitions were dismissed as not pressed. No liberty was sought to file fresh petition.

Subsequently, in the year 2011, the claimants have filed the present petitions before the learned Commissioner, at Haveri. The learned Commissioner, Haveri, has allowed the claim petitions and awarded compensation with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

The appellant/insurance company has filed these appeals raising various grounds and the learned counsel for appellant/insurance company has argued in

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

consonance with the grounds raised and one of the principal contention of the appellant/insurance company is that the earlier claim petition No.474/2004 was dismissed as not pressed and liberty was not sought for filing fresh petition. Therefore, filing of subsequent petitions before the learned Commissioner, Haveri, are not maintainable in view of Order IX Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short).

Therefore, it is argued that the claimants ought to have taken recourse to get restoration of the previous petitions filed before the learned Commissioner, Chitradurga and contest the same or after getting restoration/revival of the earlier petition at Chitradurga, then the clamant ought to have contested the claim petitions. Therefore, once before the learned Commissioner, Chitradurga, the claim petitions have been attained finality, hence once again filing the claim petitions

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

on the very same cause of action are not maintainable. Therefore, prays to set aside the impugned orders.

Learned counsel for appellant/insurance

company places reliance on the following decisions.

i) Judgment of this Court in MFA No.101224/2022 c/w. MFA No.100968/2020 dated 09.01.2025, in the case of Smt.Manoranjana W/o. Anand Koli and others vs. Mr.Ayub Sardar sheikh Since deceased rep. by his Lrs. and another.

ii) Judgment of this Court in 4116/2008 dated 16.11.2016, in the case of Divisional Manager vs. Rahimansab and another.

iii) Judgment of this Court in MFA No.24208/2011 dated 05.07.2021, in the case of The Divisional Manager vs. Halappa and another.

Therefore, by placing reliance on the decisions

of this Court above stated, the learned counsel vehemently submits that the claim petitions filed before the learned Commissioner, Haveri, are not maintainable.

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

Therefore, prays to allow the appeals and set aside the impugned orders.

The respondents/claimants and the

employer/owner of vehicle were remained absent in spite of service of notice to them. Therefore, this Court has appointed learned counsel Sri Abhinandan Hiremath, as Amicus Curiae for the respondents/claimants and also to assist the Court.

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company and the learned Amicus Curiae for the respondents/claimants and perused the material placed before the Court.

The substantial questions of law that arise for

consideration in these appeals are as under:

i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, once the claim petitions are disposed of either by way of default, non prosecution, withdrawal or not pressing the petitions,

11 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

then subsequent petitions filed by the very same claimants in respect of the very same accident are maintainable?

ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner, Haveri, requires any interference by this Court?

Only one point is argued by the learned counsel

for appellant/insurance company that the claim petitions are not maintainable in view of Order IX Rule 9 of CPC that the previous claim petition filed before the learned Commissioner, Chitradurga, was dismissed as not pressed upon the memo filed by the learned counsel for the claimants and liberty was not granted for filing the successive petitions. Therefore, subsequent claim petitions are not maintainable. Therefore, by placing reliance on the above decisions, it is argued that the claim petitions filed before the learned Commissioner, Haveri, are not maintainable. Therefore, prays to allow the appeals.

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

The ratio laid down in all the above cited

decisions is that once the claim petition is dismissed for default, non prosecution, withdrawal, not pressed, then, the subsequent claim petitions are not maintainable by placing reliance on Order IX Rule 9 of CPC. Therefore, it was observed that the claimants are precluded from bringing fresh claim petitions in respect of the very same cause of action. But the claimants may seek for setting aside the said dismissal order and if the Court restores/revives the claim petitions, then the claimants shall pursue the said petitions.

Order IX Rule 9 of CPC stipulates as follows:

9. Decree against plaintiff by default bars fresh suit.— (1) Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs or

13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit.

(2) No order shall be made under this rule unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party.

The key word is for precluding bringing a fresh suit is “on the same cause of action”. Therefore, for every new cause of action or where cause of action is continued, and on the basis of the continued same cause of action, claiming legal right is still subsisting, then the second petition can be filed. The Order IX Rule 9 of CPC precludes filing fresh petitions on the very same cause of action.

The claim petition arising out of motor vehicle accident or employment injuries/death, the claim for compensation is continuing one and the cause of action to prefer the claim petition is continuing one. The claim of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act or under the Employees Compensation Act or under any other allied statutes, these statutes are social beneficial legislatures.

14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

The technicality of law shall not come in the way of giving substantial justice. The judicial approach, thus, seems to be liberal in regard to prosecution of claim petitions under the Act. The dismissal of the claim petitions, otherwise than on merits, has not been held to be a bar to file fresh petition, irrespective the fact of either the first petition was dismissed or withdrawn or was dismissed for default.

Order XXIII Rule 14 of CPC stipulates as

follows:

1. Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim.—

(1) XXX

(2) XXX

(3) XXX

(4) Where the plaintiff—

(a) abandons any suit or part of claim under sub-rule (1), or

(b) withdraws from a suit or part of a claim without the permission referred to in sub-rule (3),

15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

he shall be liable for such costs as the Court may award and shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject-matter or such part of the claim.

The cause of action for filing the claim petition for seeking compensation being a recurring one, it is not necessary for the claimant/plaintiff to obtain permission of the Court to withdraw the claim filed in the previous petition. Therefore, the claimant can still maintain a second petition till his right is decided or the second petition is for any other reasons such as territorial jurisdiction or pecuniary jurisdiction, etc.,. Therefore, where death or injury occurs either in a motor vehicle accident or occurs death or such injury to workman out of and in the course of employment, the legal right is continuing one till his claim is adjudicated as per law. Therefore, the cause of action for filing claim petition till his plea of claim is decided is recurring one. Therefore, dismissal of the previous petition even for default or as not

16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

pressed shall not preclude for claiming his legal right through the second petition when the previous petition is not adjudicated on merits.

The above referred decisions have not been dealt with on the aspect regarding what is definition of “cause of action” for the bar for filing fresh suit/fresh petition. Therefore, for the difference in factual matrix involved in those cases and in the present cases, the above said decisions are not applicable to the present case. In the present case, the accident is occurred on 10.07.2004 and initially claim petitions are filed before the learned Commissioner, Chitradurga and subsequently, the said claim petitions were dismissed as not pressed upon the memo filed by counsels for the claimants and no liberty was sought for filing the fresh claim petitions as all the facts are not in dispute. The subsequent petitions were filed in the year 2011. As discussed above, for claiming compensation in these types of cases for seeking

17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 HC-KAR MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

compensation is continuing one/recurring one till the claim of compensation decided on merits. The legal right of claiming compensation is continuing one till the claim for compensation is decided on merits. Therefore, just because liberty is not sought for, while withdrawing the petition, the subsequent filing of a fresh suit/petition is not barred. Therefore, in this regard, the filing of claim petitions before the learned Commissioner, Haveri are maintainable and the determination of compensation and award made by the learned Commissioner, Haveri, is found to be legal and justified. Accordingly, I answer substantial question of law No.1 in the ‘affirmative’ and No.2 in the ‘negative’.

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The appeals filed by insurance company are dismissed.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9214 MFA No. 24762 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 24763 of 2012 MFA No. 24764 of 2012 MFA No. 24765 of 2012 MFA No. 24766 of 2012 MFA No. 24767 of 2012

18 -

HC-KAR

ii. The judgment and order dated 15.06.2012, passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Haveri, in W.C.A./N.F.No. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 of 2011, stands confirmed.

iii. Amount in deposit made by the appellant/insurance company shall be transmitted to the Commissioner concerned for disbursement, along with TCR.

iv. The Secretary, High Court of Karnataka Legal Services Committee is requested to pay fees to the Amicus Curiae as per rules.

v. No order as to costs.

Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

MRK-para 1 to 18. RKM-para 19 to end. CT: BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 45