IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 8"' day of September
BEFORE
THE HON'8LE MR.JUSTICE_RAVI MAL1vr?éjm:H~r:: "
W.P.No.5032/20(5=9(G_Mr{/i;C)rr_ 1 4' 7
Between:
Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co=.UE,td.
Belgaum, now represe*-ntied by his, " '
Regional Manager, '
Nationai Insurance Co,.r~Ltd."V. '
Regionai Offi_Ce;.,_ _.
Subharam Covmprex, .1414}. '
M.G.Road,=:"
Bangalore ---..,569}.,001.' .. ...PETITIONER
(By srm.A{AN'J;%%r.K,r:r§:rerna«swarny, Advocate)
Andie,
1-,?"SangaD@3%"
" S./,0 .Hanam'av~eea Pujar,
?\iow_ aged about 23 years,
" _ 'O,Ct:t,,"C,o'oiie,
. R,/fC..,,KaI'i'agonai,
Tq :' '3<_u5'tagi,
--. fijow. Residing at Mangalagudda,
..Tq;_: Badamé.
A V.G. Sanagafad
" Age: Major,
OCC: Business,
R/0 7"" Cross, Sudi Road,
Ron, Tq. Ron,
District Gadag. _..RESPOi\iDENTS
(Sri. V.G. Sanagalad, Served, Petition stand dismissed
against $2.1)
-0-0-O-
This writ petition is fiied Articles 226 and 22V7r».oif.the
Constitution of India praying to quash the order"-dat'e.d
11.02.2009 passed on LA.NCLIV HWIWVC No,i34/2ng§;qsc
per Annexure--C, passed by the Court of the 'District'3uid»r_1e '
8: Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribuna-it'i'd.o;:1..,}Bag.aIi:,ot«.
and etc,
This writ Petition coming onflfoiii0're|irr'ii.nar,y«.h'e:ai<iiig._V
in "B" Group this day, the Court made t'i1eVfosi'i'o'w;ingV:
onnfifli,
in the ciaim pet.itVit-in 1'e.<.3p()nden1,
two appliCai:ions'-..w*ere*:1fi'a.de by the petii:i0r1<~:r--insurance
Con1panys..__4 oiiiewx' I Rule 10(2) read with
Se»oit,ioi_i' iV51V'ioi7i.(j__o_d¢e of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking
' :ii'rip1e--a_c3'x11:en'1,i of the Divisional Coritrolier. NWKRTC, as
their{hirciii-*e§§.3§or1dc:nit and amiiher under Order VH1 Rule
9 vyit.11 Section 151 of Code of Civil Proceciure, I908
secéking permission to file the w'rii,te1'i si.ateinerc1i.. Both
Fir
1,;
the applications were rejected by the 'l"'i*ibu"nai. Hence,
this petition.
2. The learned counsel for the pe't'it'i'oz1e1"
submits that the impugned order is a n_on'+spe.;§le{i_i1gp
order and requires to be set aside. He eon-:e.1?£'ds"'t:hat they».
proposed respondent is necessésm forz:t.h'e__j'u.s't- and'cis.._'fi'i3_al
adjudication of the c!’éii’:fn.
application seeking filing of-,v:_the ad’di.tionali written
statement would “«_’c.’t3S_(‘) ?jJe.””e-_ne’ce_ssary in the
circumstances… .
3. The .:’V’e:»:.c.it%i”iS,i1’f.i()i1
third respondent the oiithoflofiéiidirigiV
vehicle, which is ii’I’::’=}.iv1I’€(1’v”‘i?’\’«”i’t£1″ffi-‘,?._ appéi’iar’it herein.
Consequeritly. the appIic’aii’o–ri:’ fiiepi ii’f_gaifd.’ .O3’i”ui’i;IE{ fi1′(:’§1~S and czrimumsi.anc*cs of the
case, thefe. is no. du.;ia3f in filing the said applications.
Ti«-i§:i1eifoie;~i_ihe ii’1’a’pu.gned order of the Tribunal warrants
‘ _ in iéri’é’r({1i:t4€ ”
5. ‘j’F7or the a£’o1’esaid reasons. the writ petition. is
a11_I<)\xr~~sb1'.*;. The impugiied order dated 11.2.2009 passed
byihtr Court of ii1'w i)ist':.rict: Jiildgt', and i\/iember. Motor
/<—–»
Accident Claims 'I'rib1ma1 No.1. Bangalkot. is quashed.
Consequently. I.A.N0s.IV and V fiied by the ;;)Vcfti4_tj"ic)_z1e1'
sE'e'11'1dr_:s ailowcd.
1
*aib/~.