Allowed

Tci Express Ltd. v. Maxon Precision Motor India Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC17 Dec 2024WP/12304/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of application to implead an insurance company as a formal party in a subrogation suit. The high court set aside the impugned order and allowed the impleadment to ensure indemnification and avoid further litigation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the application for impleadment was set aside, and the application was allowed to implead the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. as defendant No.2 as a formal party.

Tci Express Ltd. Vs Maxon Precision Motor India Pvt. Ltd. — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:52047 WP No. 12304 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 12304 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

TCI EXPRESS LTD., 100 D DEVRAJ URS TRUCK TERMINAL, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE-560022 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (BY SRI. SIRAJIN BASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

MAXON PRECISION MOTOR INDIA PVT. LTD., NIRAN ARCADE, NO.563/564, SECOND FLOOR, NEW BEL ROAD, RMV SECOND STAGE, BENGALURU-560094 REPRESENTED BY ITS SUBROGEE/POWER AGENT M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE VI, NO.119, SYLVERSTRA ARCADE, EAST PARK ROAD, 11^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER REGISTERED COMPANIES ACT, 2013

¶12

M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE VI, NO.119, SYLVERSTRA ARCADE, EAST PARK ROAD, 11^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:52047 WP No. 12304 of 2024

¶15

BENGALURU-560003 REGISTERED COMPANIES ACT, 2013 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICER

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. RANGANATHAN P.S., ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-E DATED 20.02.2024 ON IA UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) OF CPC, IN COM. OS NO.727/2021, CCH-85 LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The defendant in Com.O.S.No.727/2021 on the file of LXXXIV Additional City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) is before this Court, challenging an order dated 20.02.2024 by which, an application (I.A.No.4) filed by the defendant under Order I Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code was rejected.

¶22

(i) The suit in Com.O.S.No.727/2021 was filed by

¶23

an insurer as subrogatee against a carrier to recover a sum of Rs.8,82,523/- being the value of the consignment that was lost.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:52047 WP No. 12304 of 2024

¶26

(ii) The carrier/defendant contested the suit and inter alia contended that the consignment was insured by it with New India Assurance Company Limited, in terms of a policy bearing No.93000036161100000004, which was in force from 14.09.2016 to 13.09.2017 for a sum of Rs.25,00,00,000/-. It contended that the policy covered counter liability, marine recovery arising out of marine cargo claims for both uninsured and insured cargo and also damaged cargo directly caused by fire, explosion or accident, storage/loss of goods due to theft or pilferage of cargo, water damage etc.,

¶27

(iii) The defendant thereafter filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code to implead the New India Assurance Company as defendant No.2 in the suit. The said application was objected by the plaintiffs who contended that the suit was only for indemnification of the loss suffered by the insurer and therefore the proposed defendant was not a proper and necessary party. The Trial Court in terms of the impugned order rejected the application on the ground that the proposed defendant is not a necessary party to decide the dispute and there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the proposed defendant.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:52047 WP No. 12304 of 2024

¶30

Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant is before this Court.

¶31

The learned counsel for the defendant submits that the defendant had entered into contract with New India Assurance Company to indemnify any loss and therefore, any liability that may be imposed upon the defendant had to be made good by the insurer - namely, the proposed defendant. He thus contends that the proposed defendant is not a necessary party but a formal party, so as to indemnify the defendant against the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the plaintiffs do not have any serious objection to allow the application, as that would aid the plaintiffs in recovering the amount payable to the plaintiffs.

¶32

Since the defendant has contended in the written statement that it has entered into a contract of marine insurance with New India Assurance Company, which has covered the risk arising out of counter liability, marine cargo claims for both insured and uninsured cargo, damage to the cargo caused by fire, explosion or accident or storage/loss of goods due to theft or pilferage of cargo, water damage etc., the

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:52047 WP No. 12304 of 2024

¶34

liability that may be determined by the Trial Court as against the defendant has to be indemnified by the proposed defendant. Therefore, for this limited purpose and to enable the plaintiffs to recover the suit claim, the proposed defendant is bound to be arrayed as a party in the suit. This would also avoid unwanted litigation.

¶35

Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is set aside and the application filed by the defendant is allowed and the proposed defendant is ordered to be impleaded as defendant No.2 in the suit.

¶36

It is made clear that the defendant No.2 is impleaded only as a formal party, but it will be for the defendant No.1 to contest the suit on merits and it will be for the defendant No.2 to meet the liability that may be determined by the Trial Court.

¶37

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶38

¶39

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Tci Express Ltd. v. Maxon Precision Motor India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tci Express Ltd. v. Maxon Precision Motor India Pvt. 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

Shri Gowrish S K Vs Sri Anil Kumar P

M/S Corporate Strategies Vs Smt Parvathi B

Smt Subbalakshmamma @ Subbamma Vs Sri G M Narayanaswamy

Major General (Retd) R.P. Ramachadnra Naidu Vs Mrs. Vijayamma

Jayamma Vs Girigowda

Sri. J M Gopal Vs Ms. Lahari Chinnappa