IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF Nov1a:MB_E:iT{20'1j'§'> .
THE HON'B-LE MR. JUSTICE=..S.I\?;ASAT$9A1§TARAY1§fJA"*
WRIT PETITION NO.37-.2_96 (532009 ({31\ zfg ~-/Q) :1
I3EflVVEH§N
The New India Assu.ra11c"'e. Co' Ltd; " "
IST Floor, 2ND Main, TempleR0afd,:»'
Vanivilasa Mohalla Mysppé __ V'
Through Regi0r13l._Offit:e #3 ' 'L
Unity Bui1dings"Annex"e, '
P.Ka_1inga _RaG 4Ré§a«:lj.[1\/iigsidz; Rrjadj H ~
Bangalore V 3 . '
Rep Bylts Re,<§ioi:ajVV1VIa_t1ager Petitioner
(By Si:i_.M«,c'3. '&"Assts)
PUVD
'~ _ I. Thandéivaxxxurthy
S /' 0, _Late Karibasappa
V " V Aged About 65 Years,
_ .R'1'2it..D.Nx0~.'32,
C /0.' Si;i;\7aswamy
2njd'Main Road, Yadavagiri,
Myspre
V' " ; Manjulamurthty
W/ o. Thandavaxnurthy
Aged About 55 Years,
R/A D.No.32,
C /O Shivaswamy
2"'! Main Road, Yadavagiri,
Mysore
3. Ashwin
S / 0.Mura1idhara
Major
R/A D.NO.14, 3T<1Cross,'».,_
Kalidasa Road, 0
Jayaiakshmipuram, -- _ - ~ ~
Mysore ' . V" '<.._R.espondents
[R-1 & R-3 - SerVeV(1,_" ._
R-2 ~ petition dism1'sse;cI)_
This W1-:1; 3'?..er;:jti'o:1_--:g" 'fileci under Articles 226 3: 227 of
the Cor1st:1tVt1ti:oi?g_VOf" EI1dia.V0_'pré1yingV'g to quash / set aside the
order_dt;22_0.'1O.09;5vton-oppiication filed U/s.151 & 152 of
CPC.,a pr0eet'u1re',V passed. _i__n .MVC.No.359/00, on the file of
the 1st_A'ddl.' Civil:V"JtLdge2'--S;MACT, Mysore as per Annexure --
A. -- '
; ' This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in
V. A_ 'B_"'G.rogV'p this dé.'y....t11e= Court made the foiiowing:
0 0 ORDER
0. respondent in MVC No.359/2000 has
Corrie this Writ Petition impugning the judgment and
K award vflhdated 20.10.2009 wherein its application under
Section 152 read with Section 151 of CPC for amendment of
the judgment and award is dismissed.
2. The brief facts leading tdthis Vfrit”E.’:etitiOi14’flrer.as » up
under:
The petitioner — insurance c0.IIii3any=_,’v”is; the second’
respondent in the ciairn filed’ the ‘respondent
nos.l and 2 herein for the death of
their son T. Harshadeefiin ¢b1,r1oi’:or.’ which took
place on 28.21 at”Manasa Gangotri Road,
Mysore, a motor cycle bearing
Regis:tratior1rVi§o.K}; 1074?
3; vfact_t’hlat= deceased T. Harshadeep met with an
accident while travelling as pillion rider on the motor cycle
respondent, in the said accident he suffered
.ir1j’uries ttuviiead, succumbed to it later is not in dispute.
It also in dispute that respondent nos.l and 2 filed
claim petition against the owner and insurer of the said
“*1
vehicle in MVC 160.359/2000 seeking compensationhlfor the
death of their son.
4. During the pendency the said’
second petitioner died, in that hehaif. a3 :fileii1,n_on
10.08.2006. Thereafter. the’ -clairnt
from time to time for takingfllsteps 0′ the legal
representatives of ‘.ge¢.9;id’«p¢t:uoae} on record.
However, subsequently.V:’pd§1eV__fitfo recording the
proceeding, the Tribunal
recorded dead instead of recording
the the said mistake
perpetuated claim petition being dismissed
as against””secora.d.’.respondent in first place, which resulted
second “respondent not participating in the
L’ 15.11.2007. Thereafter, the claim petition
is disposed, on merits awarding compensation to the
petitioner nos.1 and 2 who are respondent r1os.1 and 2 in
hm?
this proceedings by fixing the liability to pay the-“~.entire
compensation by respondent No.2.
5. The petitioner herein whpohis second iriesptondentviri » _
the court below tiled an application i’1Dd’:EI”:5’2′ “read
with 151 to bring the said mistake noti;ce..Ajof,the_§court,i ”
It is seen that the Tribunai xiifithotit its} mind and
without Iooking into;..4′.tiie in the file has
dismissed the same, whichorderiis by the second
respondent e”iné;u.i’a.nce coriipany’it’1’ti1is”Writ Petition.
;;notioe served on first respondent and
third :’r__espondei1t”vthey’haike. remained exparte. Insofar as the
notice issued to se’cond””.petitioner in the court beiow, the
sanjzehas co’n:=e”baci§: with an endorsement that second
V” resaponnsdent dead.
A 7.’ court heard the counsel for the petitioner
regarding the order passed by the Tribunai dismissing its
» application filed under Section 152 read with Section 151 of
“I
CPC. On perusal of the order dated 20.10.2009 andslalso on
going through the entire records maintained
in MVC No.359/2000, it is seen that
conducted the claim petition in :a”*¢a1~e1¢ss man”ne_r_Withoi«1t 5
even ascertaining the facts properly-_Vheforev’~v_disposVing–~.theL
claim petition.
8. The order ot the Tribunal
discloses that V the —-“Vdied earlier to
10.08.2006 and to -1′-swffiled. Thereafter, the
court after several dates
of 1 it that respondent No.2 _
insurance and consequently dismissed the
petition as”again_st respondent No.2 and decided the claim
pe..tition…Ao11._ merits;”‘aWarding compensation not only to the
‘ firstvpetitionervbnt also to the second petitioner and fixed the
liability tolpayllthe same on second respondent against Whom
the petition is dismissed.
“*1
9. “Then all these mistakes in the order shheegt was
brought to the notice of the court below,
not even taken time to 80 through the
application filed by the petitionjor applied the T
problems and dismissged the said’.ap–p_lication Aniechanicallgzg
without applying its mind az1d”~el1ou}éd..thc.. lri’;isut;’:¥v:.41’iV:’eVVs,’V’whichV
has crept into the record to”‘eontii1ue and”‘perrI1itted the
wrong judgement and toecontinue. Hence,
this court while’ of the counsel
for the ‘foiloiving order:
dial’ dated 2o.o9.2o0s is set-
aside.:zTI’1’e«.clairvrgvJv;»~MVC No.359/2000 is remanded
for fresh considenation Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
after givingnotice to the sole surviving claimant Sri.
L’ first petitioner in the court below and
who is the third respondent in this Writ
Petitiorigand also before the Court below. Thereafter, the
V’ :~?_”‘ below shall give sufficient opportunity .to the petitioner
“I
herein to eross–ex.-amine the first petitioner, PW–1 anofalso to
adduce evidence, if any, on its behalf and
dispose of the said claim petition on merits. V ‘V
With above observations, V_freit:’Peeti1{ion”fflézfiee—b3?ithe
insurance company is allowed without any ore1ei:jas_”tHo.eost. -. V ”
j Jhdge
JJ