Allowed

Hemantha Girish v. Ashok Leyland Ltd.

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2021WP/33071/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition to set aside an MACT order dismissing an amendment application. The court held the error in vehicle number was a genuine mistake and directed a fresh trial while disallowing interest for the delay caused.

What did the court decide?

The order dismissing the amendment application is set aside; the petitioner is permitted to amend within two weeks; a fresh trial is necessitated.

Hemantha Girish Vs Ashok Leyland Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.No.33071/2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.33071/2019 (GM - AC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

HEMANTHA GIRISH S/O SHANMUKAYYA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 127/4, 17^TH MAIN, MARENAHALLI LAKE, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU.

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.R.L.UDAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., HOSUR-2, SALES YARD 77, SIP COT ELECTRONIC COMPLEX, SIP COT PHASE-II HOSUR, TAMILNADU-635 109.

¶14

IFFCO-TOKIYO GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., SRI SHANTHI TOWERS, 5^TH FLOOR, NO.141, 3^RD MAIN, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 001. REP.BY ITS MANAGER.

¶15

... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1-V/O DT: 5.9.2019 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶17

W.P.No.33071/2019

¶18

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 17^TH JUNE, 2019 PASSED ON IA [AMDNEMENT APPLICATION] FILED UNDER VI RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, IN MVC NO.5144/2016 BY THE COURT OF VIII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for a direction to set aside the order dated 17.06.2019 passed on application filed under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC in MVC.No.5144/2016 by VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge & XXXIII ACMM, Member, MACT, Bengaluru, vide Annexure-A.

¶23

By way of the aforesaid application, the petitioner has sought for amendment of the claim petition to change the number of offending vehicle from TN-70/TC-292 to TN-70/TC-301. The said application has filed when the case was posted for arguments. The application came to be dismissed on the ground that as the

¶24

W.P.No.33071/2019

¶25

¶26

matter is at the stage of arguments, the application could not be considered at that stage. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶27

Sri.Jwala Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the mistake has occurred in mentioning the number of the offending vehicle. The fact that the vehicle in chassis form were traveling in a convoy, a mistake occurred which is a genuine and bonafide mistake, resulting in showing the wrong number of the vehicle. It is submitted that the vehicle bearing No.TN-70/TC-301 being involved in the accident is not in dispute and occurrence of the accident is also not in dispute. The proceedings before the MACT being one, which is beneficial to the injured have to be liberally construed.

¶28

Sri.Pradeep B., learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company would, however, oppose the above petition contending that, it is only after the Insurance Company led its evidence, the application for amendment was filed, which shows malafide

¶29

W.P.No.33071/2019

¶30

¶31

intention on the part of the petitioner. The application being a post trial amendment, the petitioner has not established any due diligence and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the application and this Court ought not to interfere in the matter.

¶32

Heard Sri.Jwala Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.B.Pradeep, learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

¶33

A perusal of the application indicates that the petitioner claims that the number of vehicle was by mistake not given properly. It is not in dispute that the accident had occurred and that the vehicle bearing No.TN-70/TC-301 was involved in the said accident. The motor vehicle accident report indicates and establishes the occurrence of the accident and damage caused to the vehicle. The reason provided by the petitioner is that the vehicle being in a chassis form traveling in a convoy appears to be genuine and bonafide. As contended by Sri.Jwala Kumar, learned

¶34

W.P.No.33071/2019

¶35

¶36

counsel for the petitioner that motor vehicle proceedings ought to be liberally construed and the application ought to have been allowed by the Tribunal. The Insurance Company has also given a single insurance policy for all the above vehicles, bought at the same time and traveling together in a convoy for the purpose of building of the body on the said chassis.

¶37

Such being the case, writ petition is allowed. The order dated 17.06.2019 rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC in MVC.No.5144/2016 is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to carry out necessary amendment within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The Tribunal is directed to proceed in the matter from the stage of the said amendment.

¶38

Taking into consideration that there was a mistake committed by the petitioner in giving wrong number of the offending vehicle, resulting in trial being completed and the matter being posted for

¶39

W.P.No.33071/2019

¶40

¶41

arguments, now on account of amendment carried out, a fresh trial is necessitated. Hence, I am of the considered view that the petitioner will not be entitled for interest for the delay caused i.e., from the date of petition till the date on which the amendment application was filed, in the event the petitioner being awarded any compensation.

¶42

With the above observation, petition is disposed of .

¶43

Sd/- JUDGE

¶44

Hemantha Girish v. Ashok Leyland Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemantha Girish v. Ashok Leyland Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Bineesh Kodiyeri Vs Directorate of Enforcement

The Management of M/S Ultratech Cement Limited Vs Rajashree Cement General Workers and Anr.

Mr Virendra Khanna Vs State of Karnataka by

Dr Rajiv Giri Vs the Director

Kum. Nagalakshmi Bai Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivanna K Vs S. Nagaveni