Karnataka High Court
Sri Mahesh @ Umesh Kumar vs M/S C K G B on 15 January, 2021
Author: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No. 8649 OF 2014(MV)
C/W
MFA No.4891 OF 2014(MV)
IN MFA 8649/2014
BETWEEN:
SRI. MAHESH @ UMESH KUMAR
S/O MAHADEVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
RESIDING AT KATAMANADODDI
KASABA HOBLI
RAMANAGAR TALUK AND DIST.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.RAJU, ADV. )
AND
1. M/S C.K.G.B.
GUBBI A/C SRI. N. SWAMY
S/O NANJAIAH(KULUME NANJAIAH)
AGE MAJOR
RESIDING AT HARAGALAVWADI
GUDDADA KAVALU
SAMPIGE POST, KASABA HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 225.
2
2. UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
1ST FLOOR, JAYADEVA COMPLEX
POST BOX NO.54, B.H.ROAD
TUMKUR-572101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.G.LOKESH, ADV. FOR R1:
SRI. T.MOHAN KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1)NOF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:07.08.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.250/2011 ON
THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
RAMANAGARA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA 4891/2014
BETWEEN:
SRI. N. SWAMY
S/O [email protected] KULUME NANJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
RESIDING AT HARAGALAVWADI
GUDDADA KAVALU
SAMPIGE POST, KASABA HOBLI
GUBBI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 225.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.G.LOKESH, ADV.)
AND
1. RAMAKRISHNA
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
3
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
RESIDING AT MATTANADODDI VILLAGE
MADABAL HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-572075.
2. UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
1ST FLOOR, JAYADEVA COMPLEX
POST BOX NO.54, B.H.ROAD
TUMKUR-572101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.RAJU, ADV. FOR R1:
SRI. T.MOHAN KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:01.10.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.249/2011 ON
THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
& CJM MACT,RAMANAGARA, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.2,52,036/- WITH INTEREST @
6% P.A. (AN AMOUNT OF Rs.20,000/- AWRDED
TOWARDSFUTUTE MEDICAL EXPENSES DOES NOT
CARRY ANY INTEREST) FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
TILL DEPOSIT.
THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
MFA 8649/2014 is filed by the claimant and MFA
4891/2014 is filed by the owner of the offending
vehicle under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for
short) being aggrieved by the judgment and award of
the Tribunal passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal in MVC 250/2011 and MVC 249/2011
respectively.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals
briefly stated are that on 23.10.2010, the claimants
were proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-02-EC-9618 on Hallimala Magadi Road,
Ramanagara, tempo bearing registration No.KA-06-B-
9563 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in
a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of
the claimants. As a result of the aforesaid accident,
the claimants sustained grievous injuries and was
hospitalized.
3. The claimants filed two petitions under
Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was
further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on
account of the rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by its driver.
4. On service of notice, the respondent, owner
of the offending vehicle failed to appear insptie of
service of notice and he was placed exparte.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter
recorded the evidence. The Claims Tribunal, by the
impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident
took place on account of rash and negligent driving of
the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of
which, the claimants sustained injuries. The Tribunal
directed the owner of the offending vehicle to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest. Being
aggrieved, these appeals have been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants in
both the appeals jointly submit that the claimants
have not made the Insurance Company as party
before the Tribunal and no policy was produced and
marked before the Tribunal. Hence, the Tribunal has
fastened the liability on the owner of the offending
vehicle. They further contend that during the
pendency of these appeals, the appellant in MFA
8649/2014, being the claimant in MVC 250/2011 and
appellant in MFA 4891/2014, being the owner of
offending vehicle had filed applications for impleading
the Insurance Company before this Court.
Accordingly, the applications were allowed and the
Insurance Company was impleaded as respondent
No.2 in both the appeals.
7. The learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has contended that the Insurance Company
was not made as party before the Tribunal and in
these appeals, they have been impleaded. He
contended that no opportunity was given to the
Insurance Company to either examine the witness or
produce any documents. Hence, he sought for
remanding the matters to the Tribunal for fresh
consideration.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
9. From the perusal of the impugned
judgment and award of the Tribunal, it is clear that
the claimants have not made the Insurance Company
as party to the claim petitions and insurance policy
has not been produced and marked. During the
pendency of these appeals, the appellants have filed
applications for impleading the Insurance Company on
the ground that the offending vehicle was insured with
the said Insurance Company and policy was in force
as on the date of the accident and hence the
Insurance Company is a necessary party. This Court
by order dated 5.2.2020 has allowed the applications
and permitted the appellants to implead the Insurance
Company as respondent No.2 to these appeals.
10. Therefore, after hearing the learned
counsel for the parties and in the interest of justice,
the matters requires to be remanded to the Tribunal
for fresh consideration.
11. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The
impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is set
aside. The matters are remanded back to the Tribunal
for fresh consideration.
The parties are directed to appear before the
Tribunal on 11.2.2021 without awaiting for any
further notice from the Tribunal.
The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matters
in accordance with law within four months from the
date of appearance of the parties.
Parties are permitted to implead the Insurance
Company in the claim petitions before the Tribunal.
All the contentions are kept open.
The amount in deposit before this court in MFA
4891/2014 is ordered to be transferred to the
Tribunal.
In view of the disposal of the appeals,
I.A.1/2020 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
