The High Court of Karnataka dismissed an appeal filed by a vehicle owner against a motor accident claim award. The owner argued for dismissal due to non-joinder of the rider and lack of authority, but the court held the owner remains liable and refused to interfere.
Appeal dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.971 OF 2017 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
MR.JAYARAMA SHETTY
S/O.LATE KARIYANNA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT UBLABETTU NANCHARU VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK
… APPELLANT
(BY SRI K.A.ARIGA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
KARKALA TALUK – 574 104
Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BALLALBAGH, M.G.ROAD MANGALORE- 575 501 REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.10.2016 PASSED IN MVC
NC: 2023:KHC:41656 MFA No. 971 of 2017
NO.190/2015 BY THE ADDITIONAL MACT AND PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, UDUPI.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the owner of the vehicle aggrieved by the award passed in MVC.No.190/2015 dated 26.10.2016 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Udupi.
of the motor cycle was not holding a driving licence, as such, the case has been registered against the rider of the motor cycle under Section 3(1) read with Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is the case of the owner of the vehicle that the claim petition has to be dismissed for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. According to him, the vehicle has been taken away by the rider of the vehicle without consent.
The tribunal had held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and it is the owner alone, who is liable to pay the compensation.
Kumar etc. vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2014(4) KCCR SN 460 (SC) on the aspect that as per under Order I Rule 9 of CPC, non joinder of necessary parties is fatal to the case. He has also relied on another judgment of this Court in the case of G.Shankar v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru and Others reported in 2019(2) AKR 104 , this
Court had discussed about non-joinder of parties, where the property converted into non agricultural use followed by sale of plots and held that in the absence of the purchaser of the plots,
the application cannot be maintained. Basing on this, learned counsel submits that the tribunal went wrong in fixing the liability on the owner of the vehicle when the rider of the vehicle was not a party to the proceeding. He also submits that even there are violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.
material on record.
NC: 2023:KHC:41656 MFA No. 971 of 2017
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed .
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
SD/JUDGE
LB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 116
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court should interfere with the tribunal's order fixing liability on the vehicle owner when the rider was not a party to the proceedings.
Whether non-joinder of the rider as a necessary party mandates dismissal of the appeal filed by the owner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Executive Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanatha SWamy Koil Trust, Virudhunagar vs. Chandran and OthersReferred¶32
Executive Officer, Arulmigu Chokkanatha SWamy Koil Trust, Virudhunagar vs. Chandran and Others reported in AIR 2017 SC 1034
Ranjan Kumar etc. vs. State of Bihar and OthersReferred¶32
Ranjan Kumar etc. vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2014(4) KCCR SN 460 (SC)
G.Shankar v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru and OthersReferred¶33
G.Shankar v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru and Others reported in 2019(2) AKR 104
4 provisions across 1 enactments
MR.JAYARAMA SHETTY
SMT.KUMUDHA SHETTY
IFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
