Kerala High Court
Sivan vs Raju. P.V on 22 September, 2025
MFA (ECC) NO. 27 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:70744
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 31ST BHADRA, 1947
MFA (ECC) NO. 27 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.01.2024 IN ECC NO.13 OF 2017 OF
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA
APPELLANTS/APPLICANTS:
1 SIVAN, AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. THANKAPPAN, THATTARAMBEL HOUSE, KAYANAD, OORAMANA,
MARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN- 686730
2 VIMALA SIVAN, AGED 55 YEARS
W/O. SIVAN, THATTARAMBEL HOUSE, KAYANAD, OORAMANA, MARADY
VILLAGE, MUVATTUPPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686730
BY ADV SHRI.A.N.SANTHOSH
RESPONDENTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES:
1 RAJU. P.V
VELLIATTEL HOUSE, NIRAPPU, EAST VAZHAPPILLY, MULAVOOR
VILLAGE, MUVATTUPPUZHA, PIN - 686673
2 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
CORPORATE BUSINESS UNIT, 7, RED CROSS PLACE, 1ST FLOOR,
KOLKATTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PIN - 700001
R2 BY ADV SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
THIS MFA (ECC) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.09.2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MFA (ECC) NO. 27 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:70744
CR
JUDGMENT
1. Appellants in this appeal are the Applicants before the
Employee's Compensation Commissioner. They are the parents
of Sri. Ambady, who died in an accident on 05.01.2015 while
working as a hydraulic lift operator in the quarry belonging to the
First Respondent/First Opposite Party. The hydraulic lift
belonged to the First Opposite Party and was insured with the
Second Respondent/Second Opposite Party - Insurance
Company.
2. The Commissioner found that there is an employer - employee
relationship between the deceased employee and the First
Opposite Party and that Rs.8,61,120/- is the compensation
payable for the death of the deceased employee. But the
Applicants were non-suited, finding that the Applicants had filed
MFA (ECC) NO. 27 OF 2024
2025:KER:70744
P.L.P. No.4/2015 before the Lok Adalat held on 14.02.2015,
conducted by the Muvattupuzha Taluk Legal Services
Authority and settled the matter for Rs.10 lakhs as per Ext.X1
and that the Applicants admitted that they have received Rs.10
lakhs from the First Opposite Party in the proceedings
conducted before the Lok Adalat. Hence, the Applicants have
filed this Appeal challenging the Order of the Commissioner and
claiming the compensation fixed by the Commissioner.
3. This Appeal was admitted on 03.09.2024 without formulating
substantial questions of law. In view of the arguments
addressed before me, I formulated the following substantial
questions of law in this Appeal:
1. Whether a claim for compensation under the Employee's
Compensation Act, 1923 can be settled by filing Pre-
Litigation Petition under Section 22C of the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987 and the compensation can be
MFA (ECC) NO. 27 OF 2024
2025:KER:70744
received by the dependents of the deceased employee in
view of the bar Section 8(1) of the Employees'
Compensation Act, 1923 ?
2. Whether the dependents of the deceased employee could
be non-suited from receiving the compensation awarded by
the Employee's Compensation Commissioner on the
ground that they had approached the Lok Adalat and
obtained Ext.X1 Award and received the compensation of
Rs.10 lakhs mentioned therein?
4. Since both the Counsel consented to address arguments on the
substantial questions of law formulated, the matter was heard.
5. I heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants, Sri. A.N.
Santhosh and the learned Counsel for the Second Respondent,
Sri. Dinesh Mathew J. Muricken.
6. The learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that the very
purpose of Section 8(1) of the Employee's Compensation Act,
MFA (ECC) NO. 27 OF 2024
2025:KER:70744
1923 (for short, the EC Act) would be defeated if the Applicants
are non-suited on account of Ext.X1 Award of the Lok Adalat.
This issue is covered in the Division Bench decisions of this
Court in Shah v. Rajankutty [2006 ACJ 793] and Varghese
K.M. v. Thankamma @ Ponnamma and Others [2012 (2)
KHC 661], in which it is specifically held that no employer can
discharge the liability to pay compensation without making
deposit before the Commissioner and that the Statute inhibits
any direct payments to the claimants. In view of Section 8(1) of
the EC Act, the payment made by the employer could not be
taken into account while considering the Application for
compensation filed by the dependents of the deceased
employee.
7. Per Contra, the learned Counsel for the Second Respondent
contended that the Applicants filed P.L.P. before instituting the
present Application and the same was settled in the Lok Adalat.
MFA (ECC) NO. 27 OF 2024
2025:KER:70744
Admittedly, the Applicants received Rs.10 lakhs from the First
Opposite Party as per the award of the Lok Adalat, which is
much more than the compensation found to be eligible by the
Commissioner. Only if the Application is maintainable against
the First Opposite Party, the liability of the Second Opposite
Party as insurer arises for consideration. The learned Counsel
cited the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.T. Thomas
v. Thomas Job [(2005) 6 SCC 478], K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon v. C.D.
Shaji [(2012) 2 SCC 51] and Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services
Authority v. Prateek Jain and Another [(2014) 10 SCC 690] to enlighten
the object of the Legal Services Authorities Act and in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mastan and Another [(2006) 2 SCC 641] to
demonstrate the concept of election of remedies. Learned
Counsel contended that since the Applicants elected a remedy
under the Legal Services Authorities Act, the remedy under the
EC Act is not available to them.
MFA (ECC) NO. 27 OF 2024
2025:KER:70744
8. I have considered the rival contentions.
9. It is admitted by the Applicants that they had received the
amount of Rs.10 lakhs mentioned in Ext.X1 Award of the Lok
Adalat. It is the case of the Applicants that even before Ext.X1
Award dated 14.02.2015, the Applicants and the First Opposite
Party had executed Ext.D1 Agreement dated 24.01.2015 with
respect to the payment of the compensation and they had
received Rs.10 lakhs as compensation and that the amount of
compensation of Rs.10 lakhs was received not on the basis of
Ext.X1 Award but on the basis of Ext.D1 Agreement executed
by the Applicants and the First Opposite Party. Though the
Applicants contended that they had not approached the
Permanent Lok Adalat, they did not take any steps to set aside
the Award of the Lok Adalat. The P.L.P. was filed before the
institution of the present Application for compensation under the
EC Act. When the amount of compensation mentioned in Ext.X1
MFA (ECC) NO. 27 OF 2024
2025:KER:70744
award is Rs.10 lakhs, and when the Applicants admit that they
had received Rs.10 lakhs as compensation from the First
Opposite Party, such receipt of compensation can only be
referable to Ext.X1 Award of the Lok Adalat.
10. It is true that any payment for compensation for death made by
the employer to the dependents of the deceased employee shall
not be deemed to be payment of compensation under Section
8(1) of the EC Act.
11. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, is an enactment
subsequent to the EC Act. Section 25 of the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987 provides that the provisions of the said Act
shall have overriding effect over anything inconsistent contained
in any other law for the time being in force. The provisions of the
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 have overriding effect on
the provisions in the EC Act, which are inconsistent with the
same. Section 22C(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act,
MFA (ECC) NO. 27 OF 2024
2025:KER:70744
1987, provides that any party to a dispute may, before the
dispute is brought before any court, make an application to the
Permanent Lok Adalat for the settlement of the dispute. Under
the First Proviso to Section 22C(1), any matter relating to an
offence not compoundable under any law alone is excluded
from the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat. Section 22C
of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, does not exclude
the proceedings under the EC Act. Section 22C(2) of the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987, provides that after an application
is made under sub-section (1) to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no
party to that application shall invoke jurisdiction of any Court in
the same subject. Since the Applicants invoked the remedy
under the Legal Services Authorities Act and obtained
compensation for the death of their son, they have no right to
approach the Employee's Compensation Commissioner under
the EC Act for obtaining the very same compensation.
MFA (ECC) NO. 27 OF 2024
2025:KER:70744
12. Admittedly, they have received compensation much more than
that which is found to be eligible by the Commissioner in the
impugned Order. The very purpose of Section 8(1) of the EC Act
is to prevent the employers from exerting undue influence or
duress, from defrauding, from misrepresenting the dependents
of the deceased employees, or from exploiting their weakness,
who always belong to vulnerable and weaker sections of the
society, and persuading them to settle the dispute by accepting
a compensation lesser than that which is admissible to them.
When the dispute with respect to the compensation for death
between the employer and the dependents of the deceased
employee is settled in the mediation/adjudication of the
Permanent Lok Adalat, which is also a judicial body, there is no
question of any undue influence, duress, defrauding,
misrepresentation or exploitation on the part of the employer.
The interests of the weaker party would be taken care of by the
MFA (ECC) NO. 27 OF 2024
2025:KER:70744
Permanent Lok Adalat. Even in the absence of Section 8 of the
EC Act, its purpose would be well served in the proceedings
under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act. The
interests of the dependents of the deceased employee would be
protected in the proceedings under Section 22C of the Legal
Services Authorities Act. Hence, the bar under Section 8(1) of
the EC Act will not be applicable to the proceedings under
Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act. A claim for
compensation for the death of an employee can be
settled/adjudicated under Section 22C of the Legal Services
Authorities Act. In Mastan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered the remedies available under the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and
following the principle laid down in R. v. Evans [118 ER 1178] that
"where, either of the two alternative Tribunals are open to a
litigant, each having jurisdiction over the matters in dispute, and
MFA (ECC) NO. 27 OF 2024
2025:KER:70744
he resorts for his remedy to one of such Tribunals in preference
to the other, he is precluded, as against his opponent, from any
subsequent recourse to the latter", held that a claimant who
becomes entitled to claim compensation under both the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Workmen's Compensation Act,
because of a motor vehicle accident has the choice of
proceeding under either of the Acts before the forum concerned;
that by confining the claim to the authority or the Tribunal under
either of the Acts, the legislature has incorporated the concept
of election of remedies, insofar as the claimant is concerned;
that he has to elect whether to make his claim under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 or under the Workmen's Compensation Act,
1923; and that the emphasis in the section that a claim cannot
be made under both the enactments, is a further reiteration of
the doctrine of election incorporated in the scheme for claiming
compensation. Once compensation for the death of the
MFA (ECC) NO. 27 OF 2024
2025:KER:70744
employee is received by his dependents by resorting to the
proceedings under Section 22C of the Legal Services
Authorities Act, they cannot resort to the provisions of the EC
Act, taking shelter under Section 8(1) of the EC Act in view of
the doctrine of election.
13. In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.N. Govindan
Kutty Menon (supra), after referring to the objects of the Legal
Services Authorities Act, it is specifically stated that those
entitled to free services are members of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes, women, children, persons with disability,
victims of ethnic violence, industrial workmen, persons in
custody, and those whose income does not exceed a level set
by the government. It is pertinent to note that industrial workmen
are also included.
14. In P.T. Thomas (supra) and Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services
Authority (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court described various
MFA (ECC) NO. 27 OF 2024
2025:KER:70744
benefits of Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act.
In P.T. Thomas (supra), it is held that there is no Court fee and if
Court fee is already paid the amount will be refunded if the
dispute is settled at Lok Adalat according to the rules; that the
basic features of Lok Adalat are the procedural flexibility and
speedy trial of the disputes; that there is no strict application of
procedural laws like Civil Procedure Code and Evidence Act
while assessing the claim by Lok Adalat; that the parties to the
dispute can directly interact with the Judge through their
Counsel which is not possible in regular Courts of law and that
the award by the Lok Adalat is binding on the parties and it has
the status of a decree of a Civil Court and it is non appealable,
which does not cause the delay in the settlement of disputes
finally. The dependents of the deceased employee can very well
avail themselves of the benefits under the Legal Services
Authorities Act, and it is an injustice if the said benefits are
MFA (ECC) NO. 27 OF 2024
2025:KER:70744
denied to the dependents of the deceased employee. If the
benefits under the Legal Services Authorities Act are not
extended to the dependents of the deceased employee, it would
amount to a negation of their fundamental rights guaranteed
under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I answer both the substantial
questions of law in the affirmative and against the Appellants.
16. In view of the answers to the substantial questions of law, the
Appeal fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
JUDGE
Shg/
