Smt Nandakumari M Vs Smt Shilpa v R — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt Nandakumari M Vs Smt Shilpa v R — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30389-DB M.F.A. No.9516/2018

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.9516/2018 (WC)

BETWEEN:

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court of karnataka

SMT. NANDAKUMARI .M W/O LATE LOKESH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS HOUSEWIFE R/AT MUBARAK MOHALLA BHOVI COLONY, MOLKALMURU TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501.

GOWRAV .L S/O LATE LOKESH AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS.

SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. NANDAKUMARI .M W/O LATE LOKESH HOUSEWIFE R/AT MUBARAK MOHALLA BHOVI COLONY, MOLKALMURU TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501.

…APPELLANTS

(BY MS. K. TEJASWINI, ADV., FOR MR. SIDDAPPA B.M. ADV.,)

AND:

SMT. SHILPA V.R. D/O V. RAMNU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT VENKATESWARANAGAR CHALLAKERE TOWN-577022.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30389-DB M.F.A. No.9516/2018

HC-KAR

THE BRANCH MANAGER SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., E-8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA SITAPURA-JAIPUR RAJASTHAN-302022 PY NO.10003/31/17/358056 VALID FROM 30-10-2006 TO 29-10-2016 BRANCH OFFICE SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BASAVANAGUDI, NO.41, AJ CHAMBER R.V.ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE-04 OPP TO INDIAN OIL PETROL BUNK.

SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI W/O LATE BALAIAH, HOUSEWIFE AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/OF VENKATESHWARANAGARA CHALLAKERE TOWN CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY MR. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADV., FOR R2 R1 AND R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION, CHALLAKERE IN ECA NO.5 OF 2018 DATED 28.07.2018 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30389-DB M.F.A. No.9516/2018

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company.

The appellants-claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.07.2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Challakere, in ECA No.5/2018.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted a copy of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in MFA No.2355/2019 (ECA) disposed of on 07.08.2019, wherein the present appellants-claimants were respondent Nos.3 and 4 respectively and contended that the appeal is not maintainable.

We have perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in ECA No.5/2018, wherein, the Tribunal also granted compensation to the claimants. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the appellants are before this Court in the present appeal.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:30389-DB M.F.A. No.9516/2018

HC-KAR

A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned

Single Judge in MFA No.2355 of 2019 disposed on 7-8-2019, goes to show that these claimants were respondent Nos.3 and 4 respectively.

If the claimants have already participated in a previous appeal, they cannot file another appeal on the same issue, unless there are exceptional circumstances like a substantial question of law involved or a review of the previous decision is allowed. Therefore, a subsequent appeal is not automatically allowed after a decision has been made in a prior appeal. The principles of res judicata also applies, preventing parties from repeatedly litigating the same issues.

More importantly, the appellants were represented by Sri B.M. Siddappa, learned counsel in MFA No.2355 of 2019. Whereas, in the instant case, Sri B.M. Siddappa, learned counsel also represents the appellants. Hence, there is no merit consideration in this appeal.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:30389-DB M.F.A. No.9516/2018

HC-KAR

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of

merits.

Sd/(D.K. SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

RV

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4