Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Suren Jain vs Lahana Singh Rathod on 2 May, 2024
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
FA No. 1083 of 2022
and
FA No. 1134 of 2022
Dated : 02-05-2024
Shri Shreyas Pandit - Advocate for appellants in FA No.1083/2022.
Shri K.S. Jha - Advocate for appellant in FA No.1134/2022.
Shri V.S. Baghel - Advocate for respondents 1-5.
Heard on IA No.8889/2022 filed in FA No.1083/2022 and IA
No.7807/2022 filed in FA No.1134/2022, which are applications under Order 41
Rule 5 CPC.
2 . Respondents 1-5/plaintiffs have already filed reply to the said
applications with the prayer of dismissal of the same.
3. Both the appeals are admitted for final hearing on 24.04.2024.
4. Trial court in the suit filed by respondents 1-5/plaintiffs under the Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855 (in short 'the FA Act') passed decree of an amount of
Rs.95,79,451/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of suit till
realization, due to death of Yogesh Singh whose dependents are respondents 1-
5/plaintiffs.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants placing reliance on the decision in
the case of Malwa Strips Private Limited vs. Jyoti Limited (2009) 2 SCC 426
(Para 12 & 14) submits that although money decree cannot be stayed, but in the
exceptional circumstances money decree can be stayed. He submits that the
present suit for compensation under the FA Act was not maintainable in view of
the fact that respondents/plaintiffs were already granted compensation under the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 by the Commissioner/Labour Court, and
upto the year 2016 an amount of Rs.24,56,645/- was paid to the
respondents/plaintiffs. By placing reliance on the decision in the case of S.
Suppiah Chettiar vs. V. Chinnathurai by his Power Agent A. Singaravelu and
Anr. AIR 1957 Madras 216 learned counsel submits that after receiving the
amount by the plaintiffs under the Workmen's Compensation Act, trial court
was not having any jurisdiction to pass the impugned judgment and decree.
6. Further by placing reliance on Section 2 of the FA Act learned counsel
submits that in respect of the same subject matter two suits/claims cannot be
filed by availing two remedies before the different forums. With these
submissions learned counsels pray for allowing their respective applications.
7 . Learned counsel appearing for respondents/plaintiffs submits that
infact no application/claim by the respondents/plaintiffs was filed before the
Commissioner Workmen's Compensation/Labour Court and it was the
defendant 3-Power Mech Project Ltd., who itself deposited an amount of
Rs.8,23,800/- in the labour Court which was paid by the Commissioner to the
respondents/plaintiffs and remaining amount was deposited directly by
defendant 3-Power Mech Project Ltd. in the bank account of
respondents/plaintiffs therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents/plaintiffs
availed two remedies and are not entitled to claim compensation under the FA
Act.
8. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the plaintiffs placed
reliance on the decision in the case of Union Of India vs. Gopaldar Varandmal
and Ors. (1966) 7 GLR 76 (Para 28) and submits that in the present case
negligence has been admitted by the employer, therefore, Commissioner had no
jurisdiction over the matter and only the civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the
question of compensation on the ground of negligence of the employer. As
such it cannot be said that the suit filed under the FA Act, was not maintainable.
He also submits that even in the light of decision in the case of Malwa Strips
Private Ltd. (supra) the appellants/defendants are not entitled for any interim
relief and prays for dismissal of the applications.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. Perusal of record shows that in the present case no application had
been filed by the respondents/plaintiffs seeking compensation before the
Commissioner Workmen's Compensation Labour Court and the document
(Ex.D/1) available on record shows that it is the defendant 3- Power Mech
Project Ltd. who itself deposited an amount of Rs.8,23,800/-, which was paid
by the Commissioner to the respondents/plaintiffs. There is also no document
available on record to show that remaining amount was also paid by the
Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation to the respondents/plaintiffs after
determining the compensation on the application, if any, filed by
respondents/plaintiffs.
11. As per pronouncement by the Gujrat High Court in the case of Union
of India (supra) the question of compensation due to negligence of the
employer cannot be ascertained by the Commissioner Workmen's
Compensation and it is the jurisdiction of civil Court only. From the extract of
issues reproduced in para 7 of the impugned judgment it is clear that no such
objection was raised by the defendants before trial court in the civil suit,
therefore, no such issue was framed. However, trial court while deciding issue
No.5 (vide paragraph 58) has held that the defendants have failed to establish
that the plaintiffs have filed any claim before any other forum and decided the
suit against defendants. Prima facie, from the documents available on record the
findings recorded by trial court in paragraph 58 do not appear to be illegal or
perverse.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion in my considered opinion there is
no exceptional circumstance on the basis of which any relief of staying the
judgment and decree can be granted in favour of the appellants.
1 3 . Resultantly the applications IA No.8889/2022 and IA
No.7807/2022 are disposed off with the direction to the appellants/defendants
1-3 to deposit the entire awarded amount under the decree along with interest
within a period of 30 days from today, which may be disbursed to the
respondents/plaintiffs upon furnishing security by them to the like amount.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
ss
