The Manager Shriram Gic Ltd vs Mangala C
2022 Latest Caselaw 4810 Kant

                         1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                      BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

     WRIT PETITION NO.3277 OF 2022 (GM-A/C)

BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
SHRIRAM GIC. LTD.,
S-5, 3RD FLOOR,
MONARCH CHAMBERS,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001
NOW REPRESENTED BY
THE DEPUTY MANAGER
SHRIRAM GIC LTD.,
NO.5/4, 3RD FLOOR, S.V.ARCADE
BELEKALHALLI MAIN ROAD,
OPP. BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
LIMB POST, BENGALURU - 76
                                     ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     MANGALA C
       W/O. LATE LAKSHMAN MURTHY
       AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

2.     YASHASH GOWDA
       S/O. LATE LAKSHMAN MURTHY
       AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
                        2




3.   MITHUN GOWDA
     S/O. LATE LAKSHMAN MURTHY
     AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS

     RESPONDENT NO.3 IS MINOR AND
     WILL BE REPRESENTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT
     I.E., THE MOTHER.

     RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE
     R/AT. NO.17, YASHASH NILAYA
     14TH CROSS, SAPTHAGIRI COLLEGE ROAD
     CHIKKASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 057

4.   KARAGAPPA
     S/O. KARAGAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS

5.   GANGALAKSHMAMMA
     W/O. KARAGAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

     BOTH RESPONDENT Nos.4 AND 5
     ARE R/AT. KARLAPURA VILLAGE
     SONNENAHALLI, BANGALORE NORTH,
     BANGALORE - 560 089

6.   SRINIVASA H.N,
     S/O. NAGARAJA SHETTY,
     R/AT. NO.628, 3RD BLOCK,
     HOSAPETE, HULIYURUDURGA HOBLI,
     KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT
     PIN CODE - 572123

                                 ... RESPONDENTS

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
                              3




QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.02.2021 AT
ANNEXURE-E AND DIRECT THE COURT OF THE SCCH-13,
II ADDL. SCJ AND XXVII ACMM COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES,   BENGALURU,     COURT         OF   SMALL    CAUSES,
BENGALURU      TO   DIRECT       THE   TRIBUNAL     TO   ISSUE
SUMMONS TO THE WITNESSES 1 TO 3 ARE MUCH
NECESSARY TO GIVE EVIDENCE TO RESOLVE THE
DISPUTE IN A JUST MANNER IN MVC NO.4355/2017 BY
DIRECTING THE COURT OF THE SCCH13, II ADDL. SCJ
AND    XXVII   ACMM    COURT           OF   SMALL    CAUSES,
BENGALURU TO AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE
PETITIONER TO CONTEST THE PROCEEDINGS IN MVC
NO.4355/2017 ON MERITS.

      THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                        ORDER

The petitioner/insurance company is before this

court questioning the legality and correctness of the

order dated 06.02.2021 (Annexure-E) passed by the II

Additional Small Causes Judge and XXVII ACMM Court

of Small Causes, Mangaluru, wherein the court partly

accepted the case of the petitioner to summon

witnesses.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and perused the writ petition papers.

3. The petitioner-insurance company filed an

application - I.A. under Order 16 Rule 1 Code of Civil

Procedure (for short hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') to

summon six witnesses to give evidence and to produce

documents.

4. The tribunal partly accepted the application

of the petitioner/insurance company and allowed the

application and summoned witnesses No.4 and 5 to give

evidence and rejected the application insofar as

summoning witnesses No.1 to 3 mentioned in the

application.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would

mentioned in the application would be very much

necessary and relevant, since the petitioner/insurance

company has taken the contention that the insured

vehicle is not involved in the accident. However, the

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim

petition is already posted for judgment.

6. The impugned order is dated 06.02.2021

and in-pursuance of the said order, the

petitioner/insurance company has examined witnesses

No.4 and 5 indicated in its application - I.A (Annexure-

C). However, the present writ petition is filed before this

court on 07.02.2022, after more than a year of passing

the impugned order. The petitioner has not come

forward to challenge the impugned order immediately

and when the petition is posted for judgment, the

petitioner is before this court. When the petition is

posted for judgment, it may not be proper for this court

to interfere with the impugned order, that too when the

petitioner is not vigilant in approaching this court.

Therefore, I decline to entertain this writ petition.

However, it is open for the petitioner to urge all

grounds in case, the award goes against the

petitioner/insurance company in an appeal.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HJ