Chamarajegowda S/O Siddegowda vs Sarojamma W/O Late Bhommegowda
2022 Latest Caselaw 8759 Kant

                             1




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                        BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

           M.F.A.NO.1130 OF 2013 (MV-D)

BETWEEN:

CHAMARAJEGOWDA,
S/O SIDDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
HARESOMANAHALLY VILLAGE,
NUGGEHALLI HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.                  ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI GIRISH B BALADARE, ADV.)

AND:

  1. SAROJAMMA,
     W/O LATE BHOMMEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
     BANDIHALLI VILLAGE,
     KASABA HOBLI,
     CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
     HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

  2. RAMAKRISHNEGOWDA,
     S/O PUTTEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
     ANEKERE VILLAGE,
     DANDIGANAHALLY HOBALI,
     CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
     HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201.

  3. THE MANAGER,
     THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
                             2




     VENKATESHVARA BUILDING,
     HASSAN - 573201.

  4. SMT. MAHDEVAMMA,
     W/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
     RESIDENT OF VALAMBIGE VILLAGE,
     SINGAPURA POST,
     H.N. PURA TQ,
     HASSAN DISTRICT - 573201.           ...RESPONDENTS

     (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE
     COURT ORDER DATED: 13.01.2020)

(BY SRI JAGADEESH H T, ADV. FOR R1,
 SRI A.N.KRISHNA SWAMY, ADV. FOR R4,
 SRI O MAHESH, ADV. FOR R3, (VC)
 V/O/DT: 15.12.2017, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED)
                        ----
      THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:28.01.2006
PASSED IN MVC NO.27/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
(SR.DN) AND ADDITIONAL MACT AT CHANNARAYAPATNA
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.2,25,000/- WITH INTEREST
@ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT IN
COURT.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-


                      JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Girish Baladare, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri O Mahesh, learned counsel for R.1 -

insurance company.

2. This appeal is presented by the 1st respondent in

MVC 27/2004 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and

Addl. MACT, Channarayapatna. In a claim petition was

filed by one Sarojamma claiming compensation in respect

of death of one Santosh. The tribunal in terms of the

impugned order dated 28.01.2006 has allowed the petition

in part and compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- is awarded

against 1st respondent - driver of the vehicle along with

interest @ 6% p.a. The claim against the owner and the

insurer is dismissed on the ground that as on the date of

the accident one Mahadevamma was the owner of the

vehicle and she was not made a party. The driver being

aggrieved by the said judgment and award has preferred

this appeal before this Court and an application under

Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead Mahadevamma who is

said to be the original owner of the vehicle when the

accident had occurred. This Court allowed the application

and Mahadevamma was impleaded as party/respondent

No.4.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit

that he has produced documents viz., Form No.29, 'B'

register extract of the vehicle involved in the accident and

the endorsement of the RTO, Hassan dated 24.04.2006

which is pertaining to the vehicle involved in the accident.

4. Admittedly, Mahadevamma who is now impleaded

as a party and who is said to be the owner of the vehicle at

the time of the accident, was not a party before the claims

tribunal. Mahadevamma needs to be heard before passing

an order. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the

opinion that in the interest of justice, the impugned

judgment and award is to be set-aside. Hence, the

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed and remanded.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated

28.01.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn.) and

Additional MACT, Channarayapatna in MVC No.27/2004 is

set-aside. The matter is remanded to the jurisdictional

MACT, Channarayapatna for fresh adjudication in

accordance with law by giving an opportunity of hearing to

Smt Mahadevamma who is said to be the owner of the

vehicle at the time of the accident.

(iii) This Court has not expressed any opinion on the

merits of the matter.

(iv) All the contentions of the claimant, owner and insurer

of the vehicle are kept open.

(v) The accident is of the year 2002. Hence, the tribunal

shall give priority for the disposal of this case and the

same shall be decided in accordance with law within a

period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the copy of

the order.

(vi) It is noticed that this appeal has to be allowed and

remanded on account of technicalities in filing claim

petition to which the insurance company cannot be held

responsible. Under the circumstances, the tribunal has

also to take note of the fact and decide as to whether the

claimant is entitled for interest in the event the Tribunal

holds that the insurance company is liable to pay

compensation for the period during which this appeal is

pending.

(vii) Amount in deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the

appellant on proper identification.

(viii) Registry is directed to transmit all the records along

with the additional documents filed along with an

application as well as memo to the tribunal.

(ix) I.A.4/2013 filed for stay does not survive for

consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BRN