Karnataka High Court
Lalita Bai W/O Late Vinod And Ors vs Sangamma W/O Bhimanna Allambure on 6 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1493
MFA No. 201382 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201382 OF 2014 (MV-D)
BETWEEN:
1. LALITA BAI
W/O LATE VINOD,
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. AMAR S/O LATE VINOD,
AGE: 17 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
3. ABRAHAM S/O LATE VINOD,
AGE: 16 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
Digitally signed 4. MARY D/O LATE VINOD,
by SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA AGE: 14 YEARS,
UDAGI
Location: HIGH OCC: STUDENT,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
5. ARUN S/O LATE VINOD,
AGE: 12 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT,
6. KALLAPPA S/O LATE JATTEPPA,
AGE: 64 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
7. RAMAWWA W/O KALLAPPA,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
THE APPELLANT NO. 3 TO 5
ARE MINORS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1493
MFA No. 201382 of 2014
UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR
REAL MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1,
AND ALL R/O MALCHAPUR,
TQ. BHALKI, DIST. BIDAR.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHARANABASAPPA K. BABSHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SANGAMMA
W/O BHIMANNA ALLAMBURE,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: HOUSE-HOLD & BUSINESS,
R/O VILLAGE VILASPUR, TQ. BHALKI,
DIST. BIDAR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAHUL R. ASTURE, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 24.05.2014, PASSED BY THE ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE, M.A.C.T. BIDAR SITTING AT BHALKI, IN MVC
NO.181/2010 AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT AS
CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANTS AND ENTIRE LIABILITY MAY BE
FIXED ON THE RESPONDENT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1493
MFA No. 201382 of 2014
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
Heard both sides.
2. This proceeding has checkered history. The
appellants-petitioners filed a claim petition in MVC
No.181/2010 before the Addl. Dist. Judge, MACT-Bidar,
sitting at Bhalki (for short, 'the Tribunal').
3. They had contended that they being the widow
and the dependents of one Vinod, who died in a road
traffic accident involving a tractor and trailer owned by the
sole respondent therein, claimed compensation under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said petition
came to be allowed and the Tribunal awarded
compensation in a sum of Rs.6,46,000/- under different
heads as below:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1493
Sl.No. Heads Amount
1. Loss of dependency to Rs.5,76,000/-
2. Loss of estate Rs.10,000/-
3. Loss of love and affection to Rs.35,000/-
the petitioners No.1 to 7 at
Rs.5,000/- each
4. Transportation of dead body Rs.10,000/-
and funeral expenses
5. Loss of consortium to the Rs.15,000/-
petitioner No.1
Total Rs.6,46,000/-
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners
approached this Court in MFA No.201382/2014. In the
meanwhile, execution proceedings were also initiated in
E.P.No.133/2014. During the pendency of this appeal, the
matter was settled before the executing Court.
5. After hearing both sides, the appeal i.e. MFA
No.201382/2014 was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court by judgment dated 31.03.2022 and this Court
had enhanced the compensation from Rs.6,46,000/- to
Rs.6,92,600/-.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1493
6. Thereafter, a review petition came to be filed by
the respondent herein in R.P.No.200027/204.
7. The learned Bench which had disposed off the
MFA No. 201382/2014 on 31.03.2022, in a detailed order
noted that there was a settlement between the parties
before the executing Court and therefore suppressing such
settlement, a judgment has been obtained in MFA No.
201382/2014 dated 31.03.2022, recalled the said
judgment by allowing the review petition.
8. In paragraph No.7 of the order in the review
petition this Court has observed as below:
"7. It is not in dispute that the respondents
filed the claim petition in MVC.No.181/2010 on the
file of Additional District Judge, MACT, Bidar sitting
at Bhalki. The said claim petition came to be allowed
vide judgment and award dated 24.05.2014. The
respondents, being dissatisfied with the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed the
appeal in MFA.No.201382/2014 and also filed an
execution petition in EP.No.133/2014. During the
pendency of the miscellaneous first appeal, the
parties have entered into settlement and the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1493
respondents filed a memo on 23.01.2015 in
execution petition before the Executing Court,
wherein it is stated that the decree holder has
received the award of compensation from the J.Dr.
out of Court and the award is fully satisfied. Now
the D.Hr. is not intending to proceed with and the
case, may kindly be closed as fully satisfied. That
once the parties have arrived at a settlement in
respect of any dispute and that dispute is amicable
settled by way of a final settlement is set aside in
proper proceedings, it cannot lie in the mouth of
one of the parties to the settlement to spurn it on
the ground that the respondents executed an award
passed by the tribunal. The appeal is the
continuation of original proceeding. If this is
permitted to the sanctity of contract, the settlement
also being a contract, would be wholly lost and it
would be open to one party to take the benefit
under the settlement and then to question the same
without having the settlement set aside. I am of the
opinion that since the dispute was finally settled and
payments were made as per the settlement, it was
not open to the respondents to continue the appeal.
The Executing Court, vide order dated 23.01.2015,
accepted the memo and dismissed the execution
petition as fully satisfied. The respondents have no
right to proceed with the appeal in
MFA.No.201382/2014. The respondents have misled
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1493
this Court and obtained the disposal of
MFA.No.201382/2014. As the petitioner has already
paid the compensation amount in full satisfaction
and the respondents have no right to proceed with
the appeal. Thus, the judgment passed in MFA
No.201382/2018 dated 31.03.2022 is liable to be
reviewed."
9. Thus, it is very clear that the appellants herein
suppressing the fact that there was a settlement before
the executing Court had obtained an orders of
enhancement, the present appeal is also not maintainable.
This observation is made by this Court in review petition.
10. It is trite law that execution proceedings is a
continuation of the original proceedings. It cannot be
treated as an independent proceeding at any stretch of
imagination. In umpteen number of judgments, the High
Courts and the Apex Court have held that execution
proceedings are continuation of the original proceedings.
Therefore, if settlement is reached between the parties in
executing Court, there cannot be any continuation of the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1493
original proceeding in whatsoever manner unless the
settlement itself provides for.
11. Therefore, the present appeal also do not
survive as observed by this Court in review petition.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
SDU
CT: AK
