Dismissed

P v. Prakash v Smt Drakshayanamma

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2023WP/13897/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging an order impleading a respondent as a necessary party in a workmen's compensation case. The Court held that the Trial Court's order merely granted an opportunity to prove relationship and equitably balanced interests, warranting no interference.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no interference with the impugned order.

P v Prakash Vs Smt Drakshayanamma — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:43432 WP No. 13897 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶7

WRIT PETITION No. 13897 OF 2020 (GM-AC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

P. V. PRAKASH, S/O LATE VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶10

GOWRAMMA, W/O P. V. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶11

BOTH ARE R/O JANAKAL VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI KANTHARAJAPPA M. G., ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by VALLI M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT. DRAKSHAYANAMMA, W/O BHYRAPPA, AGE MAJOR, R/O NAKIKERE VILLAGE, HOSADURGA TALUK-577527. OWNER OF THE TRACTOR TRAILER BEARING REG.NO.KA.16-TA.9351-9352.

¶17

THE BRANCH MANAGER, IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., CHITRADURGA BRANCH, J. C. R. MAIN ROAD, CHITRADURGA -577501.

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:43432 WP No. 13897 of 2020

¶19

POLICY NO.1-V4KU111-M3420248, VALID FROM 4/10/2018 TO 3/10/2019

¶20

SMT.POOJA, W/O LATE LOKESH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/O JANAKAL VILLAGE, MADADAKERE HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK-577527.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; Notice to R1 & R2 is dispensed with vide order dated 04.01.2021)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HOSADURGA IN ECA NO.3/2019 DATED 20.1.2020 ON IA NO.1 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-J TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioners filed petition under Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation (Amended) Act seeking compensation on account of the death of their son Sri Lokesh against the owner of Tractor-Trailer bearing No.KA.16T.A.93519352 and respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

¶27

During the pendency of claim petition, respondent No.3 claiming to be the wife of deceased Lokesh filed an application

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43432 WP No. 13897 of 2020

¶29

under Order I, Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead herself as necessary respondent. The Trial Court being prima facie satisfied allowed the application holding that her presence is necessary for adjudication of the dispute and determination of rights of the parties.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no marriage between the deceased Lokesh and respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 was minor and hence, the marriage cannot be accepted. The Trial Court committed an error in permitting her to be impleaded as necessary respondent. Hence, prays for quashing of the impugned order.

¶31

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that no hardship would be caused to the petitioners if respondent No.3 is impleaded as necessary party to the proceedings as the petitioners have an opportunity before the Trial Court to prove that respondent No.3 is not the wife of deceased Lokesh. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

¶32

The Trial Court while permitting respondent No.3 to be impleaded as respondent No.3 has merely granted an opportunity to prove her relationship with deceased Lokesh.

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:43432 WP No. 13897 of 2020

¶34

The petitioners equally have an opportunity before the Trial Court to disprove the case of respondent No.3. The Trial Court has further made it clear that merely permitting respondent No.3 to be impleaded as respondent No.3 would not amount to acceptance of relationship. In my view, as the impugned order is equitably balancing the interest of the petitioners as well as respondent No.3, no interference is warranted and the petition does not merit consideration. Hence, the petition is

¶35

dismissed .

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

P v. Prakash v Smt Drakshayanamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P v. Prakash v Smt Drakshayanamma

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

Smt D Lalitha Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shri S Manimaran Vs Smt D Amudha

Mr Anish Sharma Vs Mrs Anamika Sharma @ Anamika Kalia

Master Sanjay D S Vs Sri Manjunath B N

Tabriaz Pasha @ Tabriaz, Vs State of Karnataka

Rajesh Kumar Shetty, Vs T Subbaya Shetty