Disposed

Smt Vanajakshi R v. Sri Gurudath N

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2021WP/20122/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court, on a preliminary hearing of a writ petition under Art. 227, declined to interfere with the trial court's dismissal of the petitioners application under Order XV Rule 2 CPC to delete their name from a motor vehicle compensation case, keeping all questions open.

What did the court decide?

Original writ petition dismissed with all questions kept open for final decision pending evidence.

Smt Vanajakshi R Vs Sri Gurudath N — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 20122/2021 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SMT. VANAJAKSHI R W/O SRI SRIKANTHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO 441/1, 1^ST FLOOR 2^ND CROSS, VENKATARANGAPURA PALACE GUTTAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 003.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. DEEPA.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUDARSHAN S., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

SRI GURUDATH N S/O NOT KNOWN AGED MAJOR R/AT NO 13, 1^ST MAIN ROAD PALACE GUTTAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 003.

¶12

ALSO AT: ESHWATRA MAHESHWARI NO 1, 2^ND CROSS VENKATA RANGAPURAM PALACE GUTTAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 003.

¶13

¶14

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD BAJAJ FINSERV 1^ST FLOOR SY NO 208 /1-B BEHIND WEIKFIELD IT PARK VIMAN NAGAR PUNE - 411014 REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶15

SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT BYADANURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 561 202.

¶16

SRI. KANIMAPPA S/O LATE BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT : BYADANURU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 561 202. ... RESPONDENTS

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.09.2021 PASSED ON IA UNDER ORDER XV RULE 2 OF CPC IN MVC NO.917/2016 PASSE BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMUKUR, VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND; ALLOW THE IA UNDER ORDER XV RULE 2 OF CPC IN MVC NO.917/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner, who has admittedly purchased a motor vehicle which is involved in a road accident on 3.4.2016 and who is arrayed as one of the respondents in MVC No.917/2016 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru (for short, ' the Tribunal ), has impugned the trial Court's order dated 20.9.2021. The Tribunal by its order has rejected the petitioner's application under Order XV Rule 2 of CPC. The impugned order reads as follows:

¶22

"Petitioner & Respondent counsels present heard the arguments on IA u/order XV Rule 2 CPC.

¶23

IA U/order XV Rule 2 of CPC is dismissed in view of issue No.4 framed in this case and also in view of civil appeal No.1427/2018 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 6-2-2018.”

¶24

The petitioner in filing this application wants

¶25

her deletion from the array of parties on the ground that the registration of the vehicle was in the name of the

¶26

¶27

transferor of the vehicle as of the date of the accident and according to this transferor, the Insurance Policy was in vogue as of the date of the transfer. In support thereof, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the road accident is on 3.4.2016 and though the petitioner purchased the vehicle on 29.3.2016, the vehicle was not transferred in her name until 7.4.2016 and she has received the intimation of transfer only on 7.4.2016. Therefore, the petitioner must be extended the benefit of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naveen Kumar v/s Vijay Kumar and others reported in (2018)3 SCC 1, an authority on the liability to pay compensation when the offending vehicle is transferred but the registration of the vehicle has continued in the name of the transferor even as of the date of the accident.

¶28

However, when queried, the learned counsel

¶29

for the petitioner does not dispute that the necessary forms for transfer of the registration were filed with the

¶30

¶31

authorities concerned on 30.3.2016 itself i.e., before the accident. The question of the petitioner's liability would necessarily have to be considered by the Tribunal in the light of the evidence that would be placed on record by the petitioner and other parties in this regard.

¶32

Insofar as the cancellation of the insurance policy by the Insurance Company because of the transferor’s error as alleged, the petitioner's contention that she was made to believe that the policy was duly purchased and had not been cancelled as of the date of transfer, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, appropriate issue in Issue No.4 is framed and that must be decided in the light of the evidence placed on record.

¶33

Therefore, there is no reason for interference and the petition stands disposed of keeping all questions open for final decision.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Smt Vanajakshi R v. Sri Gurudath N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Vanajakshi R v. Sri Gurudath N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sarojamma Vs Sri G Narasaiah

Sri N Narasimhaiah Vs Sri G Narasaiah

Sri H S Basavaraju Vs Sri H R Sandeep

Sri. Lazar Vs Smt Pushpa

Smt Vanajakshi R Vs Sri Gurudath N

M Ranjit @ Rankit Makkal Vs Sri B Prashanth