Allowed

The National Insurance Company Limited v. Ramesha

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2022MFA/10446/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An insurance company appealed against an ex-parte motor accident compensation award, claiming lack of notice. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the award, and remanded the case to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after joining all parties to record evidence.

What did the court decide?

The insurance company's appeal was allowed; the award was set aside; the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration with liberty to lead evidence.

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Ramesha — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

M.F.A.No.10446/2018 (MV - D)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, TP HUB, BGS APOLLO HOSPITAL ROAD, MYSORE.

¶9

NOW AT THE NATIONAL INSUSRANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DO-2, NO.1, SRI. SRINIVASA PLAZA, 1^ST FLOOR, 5^TH STAGE, ADICHUNCHANAGIRI MAIN ROAD, KUVEMPUR NAGAR, MYSURU - 23.

¶10

ALSO AT THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE: 144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, MG ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001, NOW REPRESENTED BY ASST. MANAGER, LEGAL. (BY SRI.ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

… APPELLANT

¶12

AND:

¶13

RAMESHA, S/O CHIKKAJAVARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶14

¶15

SMT. BHAGYA, W/O RAMESHA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶16

BOTH ARE R/O HULIKEREKOPPALU VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶17

ESHWARA, S/O HANUMANTHEGOWDA, R/O NO.30, NYEGERE, ARAKALAGUDU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶18

… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.BHUSHANI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.SACHIN JANARDHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶19

THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/O.43 RULE 1(C) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/09/2018, PASSED ON IA.NO.I, IN MISC.NO.1/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., AND MACT, MANDYA, DISMISSING THE IA.I FILED U/SEC.5 OF LIMITATION ACT.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act' for short), challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.170/2014 dated 30.07.2015 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional MACT, Mandya and also the order passed in Misc.No.01/2017

¶23

¶24

dated 19.09.2018 by the Court of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mandya.

¶25

The brief facts of the case are that on 22.04.2013 at about 5.30 p.m., road work was being carried through JCB bearing Engine No.H00025917, Chassie No.1821047, in front of the house of one Jayamma, Harijan Colony, Hulikerekoppalu, Dudda Hobli, Mandya Taluk and the son of the claimants was watching the same by standing on the road side. At that time, the driver of the JCB moved in front and reverse direction in rash and negligent manner has dashed against the son of the claimants. Due to impact, the son of claimants succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the claimants being the parents have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation.

¶26

Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the records.

¶27

¶28

Before the Tribunal, Mandya, the Insurance Company was placed exparte.

¶29

It is the contention of the learned counsel for

¶30

the appellant - Insurance Company that the notice was not served on the appellant-Insurance Company by the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal has proceeded to pass the said award by making Insurance Company exparte. Subsequently, the Insurance Company has filed application under order IX Rule 13 of CPC seeking to set-aside the exparte order passed against the Insurance Company. There was delay of 485 days in filing the miscellaneous application. The Tribunal has rejected the application filed for condonation of delay and consequently, dismissed the miscellaneous application also. Therefore, the Insurance Company is in appeal.

¶31

It is contended that the driver of the JCB

¶32

Machine, which is offending vehicle did not have driving license to operate/function the JCB machine. It is stated

¶33

¶34

that the same is admitted in the reply to the notice issued by the Insurance Company under Section 133 of the MV Act and also charge sheet is filed against the driver of the offending vehicle that he was not holding the driving license. These are the questions to be determined during adjudication. The Insurance Company was placed exparte. Therefore, in order to enable the appellant/Insurance Company to contest the case and also giving liberty to the claimant, driver and owner of the offending vehicle to contest the case, it is just and proper to remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

¶35

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i. The appeal is allowed .

¶38

ii. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MVC No.170/2014 and also the order passed in Misc.No.01/2017 are hereby set-aside.

¶39

¶40

iii. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

¶41

iv. Liberty is reserved to the parties to lead oral or documentary evidence or both, if they are so advised.

¶42

v. The driver, owner and Insurance Company are permitted to file their respective written statements.

¶43

vi. All the contentions are left open.

¶44

vii. The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith.

¶45

viii. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 27.12.2022, without expecting notice from the Tribunal.

¶46

ix. The Tribunal shall decide the case and dispose of the matter within a period of three months from 27.12.2022, in accordance with law.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

The National Insurance Company Limited v. Ramesha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The National Insurance Company Limited v. Ramesha

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

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri. Bheemarajaiah

Master Tharun Vs Sri M N Ramachandrashetty

Ramappa Vs Arun Kumar

Nataraj Vs Yogisha

Sri. Rangeshappa K S Vs Prabhakara H M

The Divisional Manager Vs Shabeer Khan