Quashed

Smt.P. Sharvani v. Mrs. Shabanas Abdul Jaleel

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2024WP/1540/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the tribunal's order directing petitioners to produce charge sheet and police documents in a motor accident compensation claim. The Court held such documents are public records available to the respondent, who should have secured them instead of burdening the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order directing production of documents quashed; applications dismissed. Liberty granted to respondent to furnish certified copies.

Smt.P. Sharvani Vs Mrs. Shabanas Abdul Jaleel — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10674 WP No. 1540 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 1540 OF 2024 (MV)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. P. SHARVANI, WIFE OF LATE P. GANESH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

¶8

SRI. P. ASHOKA RAO, SON OF LATE P. VENKATACHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,

¶9

PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO. 22, 12TH MAIN, KOGILLA, KRISHNADEVARAYA LAYOUT, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE - 560 064.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

Digitally signed by B K (BY SRI. MUJTABA H., ADVOCATE) MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OFKARNATAKA AND:

¶12

MRS. SHABANAS ABDUL JALEEL, WIFE OF ABDUL JALEEL, MUSLIM, MAJOR, LORRY OWNER, MAHATHAB VILLA NO. 128-B, S.B. COLONY ROAD, CHETTEMKUNNU, THALASSERY POST, KANNUR, KERALA.

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:10674 WP No. 1540 of 2024

¶15

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, 3RD PARTY CLAIMS HUB, REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH FLOOR, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, KRISHI BHAVAN BUILDING, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001. REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956, REPRESENTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MANJULA.

¶16

SRI. K. MOHAMMAD NISAR, S/O K. ALAVI, MUSLIM, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, DRIVER, R/O KOLKARAL PARAMPA TARUVIL HOUSE, VALLUVANGAD P.O., PANDIKKAD, MALAPPURAM, KERALA.

¶17

SRI. VAISHAKH, S/O SHIVARAMAN, R/AT CHULLIKATtIL HOUSE, PULIYANOOR, VELLATTATHUR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA, R.C. OWNER OF CAR, BEARING NO. KA-01-AU-3637.

¶18

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO. 301, 2B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, 11TH A CROSS, P. KALINGA RAO ROAD, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027. REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956, REPRESENTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER BIKARAM SINGH RANA.

¶19

SRI. SAKETH PRABHANJAN, SON OF LATE P. GANESH,

¶20

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10674 WP No. 1540 of 2024

¶21

AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NO.22, 12TH MAIN, KOGILLA, KRISHNADEVARAYA LAYOUT, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE - 560 064. PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF WALTHER-RATHENAU-STRABE, 30, 39106, MAGDEBURG, GERMANY.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. MANJULA N TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED:18.01.2024, NOTICE TO R1, R3 TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE COMMON ORDER DATED 08/12/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACMM, BANGALORE (SCCH-11) ON THE TWO APPLICATIONS FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC AND SECTION 169(2) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC RESPECTIVELY IN M.V.C. NO. 7622/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioners herein have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking for compensation towards the death of husband of first petitioner and son of second petitioner in a motor accident.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:10674 WP No. 1540 of 2024

¶30

The respondents entered appearance and filed their written statement.

¶31

When the claim petition was set out for

¶32

arguments of the parties, an application was filed by respondent No.2 seeking for a direction to the petitioner to produce the charge sheet, spot sketch, mahazar, IMV report and other criminal case papers. The tribunal allowed the application and directed the petitioner to produce the said documents. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.

¶33

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶34

the documents sought to be produced are public documents and are in the custody and possession of the public servants who are empowered to grant certified copies thereof, and it is for the insurance company to secure the said documents to substantiate that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving by the car driver. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the tribunal is not sustainable in law.

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10674 WP No. 1540 of 2024

¶36

Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioners have deliberately suppressed the charge sheet filed against the car driver, and filed the claim petition stating that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Therefore, the tribunal taking into consideration the same has rightly passed the impugned order, and same does not warrant any interference.

¶37

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶38

The petitioners have filed a claim petition claiming compensation, and have produced a copy of the complaint and FIR registered against the owner of the car driver. It is the case of the respondent that the police after investigation have laid charge sheet stating that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driver. The charge sheet papers are in the custody of the police station concerned, and also the court

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:10674 WP No. 1540 of 2024

¶41

concerned in which the criminal proceedings are initiated against the driver of the car. Therefore, the respondent No.2 instead of securing the certified copies and producing the same before the court filed the application. The petitioners have categorically asserted that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the car driver and have not suppressed any material fact. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the tribunal is not sustainable in law.

¶42

Accordingly, the petition is allowed . The

¶43

impugned order dated 08.12.2023 passed by I Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Bangalore on the application filed under Section 151 and Section 169 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Section 151 of Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 in M.C No.7622/2019 vide Annexure A is hereby quashed and the applications are dismissed.

¶44

Liberty is reserved with the respondent No.2 to furnish the certified copies of the said documents and lead evidence on the said documents in accordance with law.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:10674 WP No. 1540 of 2024

¶47

It is made clear that this court has not expressed any

¶48

opinion with regard to the merits of the case.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16 CT:SNN

Smt.P. Sharvani v. Mrs. Shabanas Abdul Jaleel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.P. Sharvani v. Mrs. Shabanas Abdul Jaleel

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 Kempamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Jayamma Vs State of Karnataka

Lakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Pattabhiramaiah Vs Rajanna

Sri. Seenappa Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited

Sri Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka