Karnataka High Court
Virupaksha vs U R Veerappa on 11 March, 2025
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:10273
MFA No. 5115 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5115 OF 2018 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. VIRUPAKSHA
S/O DODDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF IGANE THIMMANAHALLY,
SALAGAME HOBLI,
HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT - 573 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHARADAMBA A.R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. U.R. VEERAPPA
RUDREGOWDA,
MAJOR IN AGE
UGANE VILLAGE,
SALAGAME HOBLI
HASSAN TALUK & DIST.-573 201.
Digitally signed
by RAMYA D 2. THE MANAGER
Location: HIGH UNITED INDIA INS. CO LTD.,
COURT OF VENKATESHWARA BUILDING,
KARNATAKA
P.B.NO.108, B.M. ROAD,
HASSAN - 573 201
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.O.MAHESH ADVOCATE FOR R2 (THROUGH V/C);
R1- NOTICE SERVED)
THIS MFA FILED U/O. 43 RULE 1(C) OF CPC, AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 27/11/2017, PASSED IN MISC.
NO.84/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE PETITION
FILED U/O. IX RULE 9 OF CPC.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:10273
MFA No. 5115 of 2018
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Though the matter is listed for admission, but with
consent of both the learned counsels appearing for the
parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. The appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant
challenging the order dated 27.11.2017 passed in
Misc.No.84/2015 by the Additional District Judge, Hassan
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short).
3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference,
the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the
Trial Court.
4. It is the case of the appellant/claimant that he
has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident and
accordingly filed a claim petition in MVC No.990/2009 before
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hassan.
NC: 2025:KHC:10273
5. When the said petition was pending for
consideration, it was referred to Lok Adalat and submitted
that in the Lok Adalat, the matter was settled between the
claimant and Insurance Company for Rs.40,000/-. Both the
claimant and his Advocate singed the joint memo in Lok
Adalat and the claimant and his Advocate were under
impression that the representative of the Insurance
Company has signed on the joint memo and were also under
impression that the claim was settled and disposed of, but
the representative of the Insurance Company has not signed
on the joint memo. Therefore, the Lok Adalat had referred
the case back to the Tribunal, but the Tribunal has dismissed
the said claim petition for default because the claimant and
his Advocate were not present before the Tribunal after the
case was referred back. Knowing this fact, the claimant has
filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC in
Misc.Petition No.84/2015 before the Additional District
Judge, Hassan, but the Trial Court has dismissed the said
petition on the reason that the claimant has not came to the
Trial Court with clean hands.
NC: 2025:KHC:10273
6. Considering the submissions by both the sides,
the matter was once again referred to Lok Adalat, according
to the claimant, the matter was settled for Rs.40,000/- in the
Lok Adalat and both the claimant and his Advocate signed on
the joint memo. They believed that the petition was settled
and disposed of in the Lok Adalat. When this being the fact,
but as per the submission made by counsel for the appellant
that since the representative of the Insurance Company has
not signed on the joint memo, therefore, the Lok Adalat has
sent back the file to the Tribunal, but the claimant and his
Advocate were under impression that the matter was settled
before the Lok Adalat and they did not know that Lok Adalat
once again send back the file to the Tribunal for
consideration.
7. Under these circumstances, the claimant did not
know that the petition was pending before the Tribunal, after
referred by the Lok Adalat. Therefore, under these
circumstances, the claim petition came to be dismissed by
default.
NC: 2025:KHC:10273
8. Considering all these factors above stated there is
some delay occurred for the reasons above discussed. The
Tribunal could have considered the petition magnanimously
considering all these eventualities, but straightway dismissed
the petition by observing that there is delay of 9 months in
filing the Misc. Petition for recalling the order of dismissal of
claim petition by default.
9. Therefore, considering the above factors, the
order of dismissal of claim petition filed under Order IX Rule
13 of CPC is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to
the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the claim petition in
MVC No.990/2009 as per law on merits.
10. However, the claimant is not entitled interest
from the date of dismissal of the claim petition for default till
today i.e., 11.03.2025.
11. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
NC: 2025:KHC:10273
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The order dated 27.11.2017 passed
inMisc.No.84/2015 by the Additional
District Judge, Hassan, is hereby set aside.
iii. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for
fresh consideration of MVC No.990/2009as
per law.
iv. The claimant is not entitled interest for the
period from the date of dismissal of
petition for default till today i.e.,
11.03.2025.
v. Both the parties shall appear before the
Tribunal on 08.04.2025.
vi. The Tribunal shall dispose of the claim
petition in MVC No.990/2009 within a
period of six months from 08.04.2025.
SD/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGE
SRA
