Smt.Pushpa W/O. Vinayak Patkar vs Shri.Ganesh Shankarrao Halgekar
2022 Latest Caselaw 238 Kant

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 238 Kant
Judgement Date : 6 January, 2022

Karnataka High Court

Smt.Pushpa W/O. Vinayak Patkar vs Shri.Ganesh Shankarrao Halgekar on 6 January, 2022

Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 6 T H DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

              M.F.A. No.100439/2019 (WC)

BET WEEN

1.    SMT.PU SHPA,
      W/O VINAYAK PAT KAR,
      AGED AB OU T 45 YEARS,
      OCC: HOU SEHOLD WORK.

2.    SWATI,
      D/ O VINAYAK PATKAR,
      AGED AB OU T 20 YEARS,
      OCC: STUDENT.

3.    SHWETHA,
      D/ O VINAYAK PATKAR,
      AGED AB OU T 18 YEARS,
      OCC: STUDENT.

      APPELLANTS ARE RESID ING AT
      VALSANDPAL LU HOU SE, 82,
      KUDDIGRAM VILLA GE,
      POST: VIA H IRADEKA,
      DIST: U DU PI, SOU TH KANARA,
      KARNATAKA - 576 113.
                                           ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI K.RAGHAVENDRA RAO AND
 SMT.V.VIDYA, ADVOCATES)

AND

1.    SHRI GANES H SHANKARRAO HALGEK AR,
      S/O SHANKARRAO HALGEKAR,
      AGED AB OU T 45 YEARS,
      OCC: BU SINESS,
      R/AT HALGEKAR BU ILD ING,
                             2




      OP P: MAHAVEER BHAVAN,
      HINDWADI, BELAGAVI- 11.

2.    SMT.UMADEVI S.HALGEKAR,
      W/O SHANKARRAO HALGEKAR,
      AGED AB OU T 65 YEARS,
      OCC: BU SINESS,
      R/AT HALGEKAR BU ILD ING,
      OP P: MAHAVEER BHAVAN,
      HINDWADI, BELAGAVI- 11.

3.    SMT.SHYALA,
      W/O SHIVAJ I PATK AR,
      AGED AB OU T 69 YEARS,
      OCC: HOU SEHOLD,
      R/AT H.No.754, VIDYA NAGAR,
      SALCETE, MARGOA, SOU TH GOA,
      GOA - 403 601.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI LOKESH HEGDE, ADVOCAT E FOR R1 AND R2;
 SRI D.G.BHAT, ADVOCAT E FOR R3)

     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEA L IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 3 0( 1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT , 1923,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 30.10.2018
PASSED IN ECA No.27/2015 ON T HE FIL E OF THE I
ADDIT IONAL SENIOR C IVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER
UNDER    EMPLOYEES'    COMPENSATION      ACT ,  B ELAGAVI,
DISMISS IN G T HE CLAIM PET IT ION FIL ED U NDER SEC TION
22 OF WORKMEN 'S COMPENSATION A CT .

     THIS APPEA L COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, TH IS DAY
THE COU RT MADE T HE FOLL OWING:

                         ORDER

The unsuccessful claimants have preferred this

Miscellaneous First Appeal challenging the judgment

and order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the I

Additional Senior Civil Judge And Commissioner under

Emp loyees' Compensation Act, Belagavi, in ECA

No.27/2015, wherein the claim petition filed by the

claimants under Section 22 of the Workmen's

Compensation Act was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the

claimants as well as learned counsel appearing for

respondent Nos.1 to 3 have jointly submitted that the

dispute between the parties to the appeal has been

amicably settled outside the Court at the intervention

of the elders and well wishers of the parties. They

have filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 3

read with 151 of C.P.C., which is also supported by

the affidavit of respondent No.3 who has stated that

she has no objection for the claimants who are the

wife and children of her son to receive the amount

towards full and final settlement of their claim. The

claimants are present before the Court in person and

they have been identified by their advocate.

Respondent No.1 is also present before the Court and

he has been identified by his advocate.

3. The parties on enquiry state that the

settlement has been arrived at voluntarily without

there being any undue influence and coercion. The

parties have filed the application under Order XXIII

Rule 3 read with 151 of C.P.C. which has been not

only signed by the respective parties but also by the

respective advocates. The terms of the settlement as

found in the application reads as follows:

"1. The Respondents No.1 & 2 have agreed to pay an settlement amount of `2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) to the appellants and the Respondent No.3 (who is the mother of deceased Vinayak), as a good gesture since the Late Vinayak Shivaji Patkar died in the accident in the premises of the Respondent No.1 & 2.

2. The Respondent No.1 & 2 have paid already an amount of `50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) in cash to the Appellants and the Respondent No.3.

Further Respondent No.1 & 2 today will pay an amount of `2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) vide Demand Draft bearing No.865257 dated 5.01.2022 drawn on Union

Bank of India, Hindwadi, Belagavi, drawn in favour of Appellant No.1 as requested by the Appellant No.1 for herself and other appellants and on behalf of Respondent No.3, towards full and final settlement amount. The Appellant No.1 is acting for herself and other appellants and for the Respondent No.3 to which all the parties consent.

3. The Appellants and the Respondent No.3 undertake not to claim any further amount from the Respondents 1 and 2 as compensation or any sort of damages, towards the death of Late Vinayak Shivaji Patkar. The respondent No.3 has sworn an affidavit stating to have received the settlement amount along with the appellants and she will have no separate

in respect of the present case or anything connected to the accident. The affidavit forms a part of the present compromise terms.

4. Both the parties will not have any claim against each other pursuant to the

disposal of the present MFA and the case between the parties stands settled."

4. As observed earlier, the 3 r d respondent who

is the mother-in-law of the 1st claimant and

grandmother of claimants No.2 and 3 has filed an

affidavit stating that she has no objection to the

claimants to receive the entire amount. Under the

circumstances, the application filed by the parties to

the appeal under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with 151 of

C.P.C. dated 06.01.2022 is taken on record. The

appeal is disposed off in terms of the compromise