3 CHIKKAPPA
S/O MALLAPPA TADAS
MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN
R/O HIREPETH, OLD HUBLI
4 PEDDA PULLANNA CHANDRAPALLI
MAJOR, OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINESS
R/O PEAPULLEWADA, '
KURROD DISTRICT 1
5 THE UNITED INDIA INSuRANCEV.CO..1.TD '
2-4153, N.K.ROAD ' _V 2 1_
NANDYAL -- 518501 ._ ..*-RESPQNDENTS
(BY SRI. B R SATENAHALLI, ADI/"}4'O'R~ R';':I__
SRI M.K.SOuDAGAR, fAl_DV'__FO;;R .R'+~-2; _
THIS MFA_'I5__ FILED UNDE.R=«s»EC'rIO;N 173(1) OF THE MV
ACT AGAINST:THE,-JL:D'GMEr\:*T AND 'AWARD DATED 20-6-2006
PASSED IN_ MV(; F!_CJ.;--'14'7.1/_19--95 ONTHE. FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN)gAN'D .A'D.1;>I,_.M.A.::T,'v., HUBLI DISMISSING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR cO'MREN'SATION.
'THIS ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
8 SREENIVASE GOW"DA'J,,'D,_Ei$__IVERED THE FOLLOWING:
.iUDGMENT
4' fCi~a_E_mant"'a«ggrieved "by the judgment and award
in dismissing his Ciaim petition has
pfeferred appeal.
/
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to as they are referred to in the c|aim._:pe_ti-tion
before the Tribunai.
3. Brief facts of the case are: i ._
on 09.04.1994, when the ciairnant vvasAtrvaveiiingiw'in,
the car bearing registration"'vii§1:o..CNViI-'39§_529it the
Truck bearing registration .~ii*J'o:}5i{T'_CV{i-446, as a" result he
sustained injuries, hen'ce.'hei'v'fii'e'd _a:_fc!Aairri;.petition against
the driver an.d~:1::n'f3,.urer of the compensation of
14, __ I the respondents entered
appearanceiiin’ the”‘.cia4iimpetition through their respective
Cou;nse9!., but”o.n_i’yV”the second respondent Insurer has filed
“of objections resisting the claim on severai
on the ground that the ciaim petition fiied
by””~the.j’ciainnant without making the owner of the car as
.party is not maintainabie and it is iiable to be dismissed.
5.
rival contentions of the parties has framed fo_id-lovvinrg
issues:
The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings and
1) Whetherfthe:laiieged-I”acci’dent”V__it
was due to rash and”n_e§.l_ig’ent”d..rivi.ng
car No.CNW~3’*3:S2~.,..or ‘wvrong
truck c’rc~14-467»”-J
2) ‘j»;vuhezher;d ‘4″”–o(_:!.a’iimant had
sustained iVnju_i*i.es in :_the”saidraccident?
) . to _What .orcier ordecree?
‘T5h.e_’claima’n’t_VVinsupport of his case, examined
himselfas PW1V_.ar1dl’Vtworvvitnesses as PWs 2 and 3 and
produced ..dAocu’mé’nts’..as Ex.P1 to P20 respectively. On
béihiaifiof t’i”:e resoonldents, no evidence is adduced.
Tribunal after considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record though has held that the
V”*’._Acla_irriant has sustained injuries in the accident: occurred on
59g
09.04.1994 due to rash and negligent driving of_..t__he car
No.CNW—39S2 but dismissed the claim petitiori~i:._on”*.ithe
ground that the claimant having not madejthe.:oi$}’nieir””of~.’_
the car as a party is not entitled.__for __thei”coIinp’en_satiionVVj
awarded by it. It is against this judgmeiriiaéid
the Tribunal, the ciaimant’h.as-..I_:0me” up in it-his:._a’ppe’ai. In 9
the appeal, the claimant got…th:e..ow_nerhoftiie and the
owner and the insurer iof. thef}ttu’c’i{fvfbearing No.CTC 1446
impieaded as respondie’n’ts.{“:
8. Léaffieidi .Coi.[in’s’e–ioappealring for the claimant
subnjitslllthatiVfthe’é:?iVi’aim’an’t by umlistake could not have made
the oiivner of–theAj_:ca’ri–._a’rid»~”the owner and insurer of the
truck_ as lapar_tiesV’.*«to”v.thé. claim petition and the tribunal
disrhissedivi.ti2e cilaiiwpetition soieiy on the ground that the
is not made as party to the claim petition
‘came to.be–.V.d:ismissed and therefore, he may be permitted
to implead them as additional respondents to the
Claim. petition and the matter may be remitted to the
..»-a
5333’
Tribunal in order to give an opportunity to the claimant to
have a decision on merits of the case.
9. Per contra, the learned Counsel’:a~–pp’eAa’riing
the Insurance Company submits:;’thatA’because
the part of the claimant in not mal{i–ng*the oyytr–‘r.:e}f’of the”car’g
as party to the claim petition’,””‘*hi:.<..%»claim"pet'ition to be
dismissed and therefore'_ icarlshould not
be made liable to pay interest and
he further submits– that in–t~he"eyie1nt..t3.f.§'this Court allowing
the apfleei-it .the":.imatter to the Tribunal
givingdan'Vo'pportur$fit'y to implead the owner
of the:VV"ca'r4'.as it may be observed
thatthe cliaivmantis Ar;ot"'entitled for interest for the period
date oi'fii'ii'i'g of claim petition till the date of the
and the owner and the insurer of the
truck areymiadie as respondents in the claim petition.
A. 10… As there is no dispute between the parties with
s.'_"'r_edg"ard to injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor
%.
road accident occurred on 09.04.1994 due to rash and
negligent driving of the car by its driver, the
that arises for our consideration in the appeaifis:p.::”.~i.cI”‘ A
“Whether the TribL’inal:::A’iSji, ‘§uS:EAiAfEe:d’~.s
dismissing the claim petition i’iolding.’vthat 9’
claimant having not n1a:deV_theA’owner t’n_e”‘ciar°
as party to the claim peltit.i:o_i°i–vVi_»s not enititied for
compensation?v”‘i_'”–._ it 9 9’ A V
11. due to rash
and negliggenti-.diriv’i’r)g its driver as has been
heid was occurred due to
rash and” the car by its driver. The
owner oft’ the vicar-_isA’:.iab£e to compensate the injured who
sL,:’st:ain__ed VVinjuriesiion.«’account of rash and negligent driving
of” its driver under the principles of vicarious
‘liabilléity the owner has insured the car, the insurer is
liable. indemnify the owner by paying compensation to
it the«in3’ured. In the instant case, the owner of the car has
fig.
insured the car with the second respondent in the claim
petition, but the claimant has not made the owner._as.l_p~arty
to the claim petition and hence, the
dismissing the claim petition_,h.olding–‘”‘t’hat_j’.insorance”t
company Is not liable to pay theV’r;orrj’pensati_o’n:a1yaVrd«eciT1.ijy
it to the ciaimant.
12. Further .th~e_ timle””sti1pol’ated filing claim
petition under the pro’yisi_o’nsi-oi’ :i\*i\_/:.ftc.”t;V!ys§_”removed by way
of an amendment of the same
claimant at any time after
sustaining”iVn}I,iri.e§j’i’r1 accident. But: oniy thing
IS he InteVrest=.for.LVt’he’delayed period. That being so,
the claimant in the iri–.sta~~«nt§can file a fresh claim petition by
ovyneir—-~-of’ the car as respondent to the claim
peltlllon_i
1,3; 2 :’Further, in view of the finding of the Tribunal in
the connected claim petitions in MVC Nos.1331, 1332 and
it of 1995 arising out of the same accident that the
claimant in those cases have sustained injuries due to rash
and negligent driving of the car bearing registration
No.CNW—3952 it is left to the claimant to imp%eads~.o:nl_y~..the
owner of the car as additional respondent_.–to”thej–cf|av§.rn.V>
petition or both the owner of the car as w’e’I’:” o.wner’V
and the insurer of the truck as
the claim petition. V l l V a V l
14. For the foregoingg_:ré:ason_s, we just and
proper to set aside and award of
the Tribuna! and. remaridv»th’e ‘m.atter”to;”th’eJ Tribunal for re~
».
consid’era’t’ilon}afte3%igiuiiit:j_’- opportlunity to all the parties.
a) A “v*tAccordin’gVl’y; theéappeal is allowed;
The judgment and award dated
:A«.sa:o;.og6.2oo6 passed in MVC No.1-471/1995 is set
“cl Claimant is permitted to implead the owner of the
car bearing registration No.CNW 3952 or both the
5::
d)
10
owner of the car bearing registration No.(_Z__i_\iW 3952
and the owner and the insurer of the tafecietbeyaring
registration No.CTC 1446 as additio-neat’4res’p’o’n’d–er:ts
to the claim petition;
The Tribunal after issuirj_gA.’i’no’tices” toiii’–ai:ir?»i.the ‘A
respondents inciaidingw’ the propoisiedi”re.sponde’n:;s
and after providinAg..4.i:t:hvem__an..op’portg,nity of filing
objections ‘o’bj’:ecVtio’ns if any and after
provid:’=ng op’po’rti3::nity_:»to’&iea.d’.eiriderzce or further
reconsider the ciaim
petiitiojnyin a_c’corL:¥ance with Jaw.
._A!liVt.}:Ve..ajconteriirions-i of the parties including the
é”~–c:ointentio’n” insurer of the car that the
clairnapnti isinot entitled for interest for the period
the date of filing of ciaim petition til! the date
it VAVrj*s~a’king the owner of the car as party in the
‘ appeal are left open._
5%,.
1°)
11
No order as to costs.