Allowed

National Highways Authority of India v. Anjanappa

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2024WP/3830/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging orders impleading petitioners (police-charged individuals) as respondents in motor accident claims. The High Court held MACT cannot fasten liability beyond owner/insurer under Section 166, set aside impleadment orders, and allowed all petitions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders allowing impleadment of petitioners are set aside; applications to implead petitioners are rejected.

National Highways Authority of India Vs Anjanappa — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:53162 WP No. 3830 of 2022 C/W WP No. 3813 of 2022 WP No. 3818 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 3830 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 3813 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) WRIT PETITION NO. 3818 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) WRIT PETITION NO. 3822 OF 2022 (GM-CPC)

¶10

IN WP No. 3830/2022

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, HAVING OFFICE AT STY NO.13, 14^TH KM NAGASANDRA, BANGALORE TUMKUR ROAD, NH-4, BANGALORE - 560 073. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICER.

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI. SHILPA GHANSHYAMBHAI SHAH., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

ANJANAPPA, S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶18

SMT. ANITHA A, D/O ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:53162 WP No. 3830 of 2022 C/W WP No. 3813 of 2022 WP No. 3818 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶20

SMT. SHRUTHI A, D/O ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶21

SRI MUNIYAPPA, S/O LATE SONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶22

SMT. THIMMAKKA, W/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶23

RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5 ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.282 KORACHARA STREET, BEHIND TALUK OFFICE ROAD, DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL DIST BANGALORE - 562 110.

¶24

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 1ST FLOOR, MANGALA PUNARBHAVA, NEXT TO BRIGADE TOWERS, BRIGADE ROAD, BENGALURU.

¶25

M/S SUHALAYA TRAVELS PVT LTD, NO.16B, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST STREET, HALASURU,

¶26

BANGALORE - 560 008.

¶27

SRI KARUPASWAMY, PROJECT DIRECTOR, M/S MURUGAN ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, PWD AND HIGHWAYS, 1^ST CLASS STATE LEVEL,

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:53162 WP No. 3830 of 2022 C/W WP No. 3813 of 2022 WP No. 3818 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶29

NO.2/203, ANDARKOTTAROM POST, MADHURAI,

¶30

TAMIL NADU - 625 020.

¶31

SRI VENKATARAVI,

¶32

SAFETY EXPERT, M S V INTERNATIONAL INC,

¶33

C/O SRI VENKATARAMAN NILAYA, NO.168/169, FLAT NO.3 AND 4 MUNICIPAL LAYOUT, 2ND MAIN ROAD, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPEL, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶34

MURUGAN, M/S MURUGAN ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, PWD AND HIGHWAYS, 1^ST CLASS STATE LEVEL, NO.2/203, ANDARKOTTAROM POST, MADHURAI,

¶35

TAMIL NADU - 625 020.

¶36

…RESPONDENTS

¶37

(BY SRI. PRAKASH M H., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; NOTICE TO R7, R8 AND R10 IS SERVED)

¶38

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.28.9.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (SCCH-3) IN MVC NO.3/2019 AT ANNEXURE-A IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶39

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:53162 WP No. 3830 of 2022 C/W WP No. 3813 of 2022 WP No. 3818 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶40

IN WP NO. 3813/2022

¶41

BETWEEN:

¶42

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, HAVING OFFICE AT SY NO.13, 14^TH K M, NAGASANDRA, BANGALORE - TUMKUR ROAD, (NH-4) BANGALORE - 560 073. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICER.

¶43

...PETITIONER

¶44

(BY SRI. SHILPA GHANSHYAMBHAI SHAH., ADVOCATE)

¶45

AND:

¶46

SRI SRIRAM, S/O MUTTU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶47

SMT MAHALAKSHMI, W/O SRIRAM, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT 2ND CROSS,

¶48

KUM. JAYANANDHINI, D/O SRIRAM, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,

¶49

RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ALL R/AT 2ND CROSS, NEAR SHALINI BAR, CHAMUNDINAGAR R T NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032.

¶50

M/S SUHALAYA TRAVELS PVT LTD., NO.16, B, IST FLOOR,

¶51

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:53162 WP No. 3830 of 2022 C/W WP No. 3813 of 2022 WP No. 3818 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶52

HALASURU,

¶53

BANGALORE - 560 008.

¶54

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶55

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD., IST FLOOR, MANGALA PUNARBHAVA, NEXT TO BRIGADE TOWERS, BRIGADE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶56

SRI KARUPASWAMY, PROJECT DIRECTOR, M/S MURUGAN ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, PWD AND HIGHWAYS, IST CLASS, STATE LEVEL, NO.2/203. ANDARKOTTAROM POST, MADHURAI, TAMIL NADU - 625 020.

¶57

SRI VENKATARAVI, SAFETY EXPERT, M S V INTERNATIONAL INC, C/O SRI VENKATARAMAN NILAYA, NO.168/169, FLAT NOS.3 AND 4, MUNICIPAL LAYOUT, 2ND MAI ROAD, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶58

SRI MURUGAN, M/S MURUGAN ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, PWD AND HIGHWAY IST CLASS, STATE LEVEL, NO.2/203, ANDARKOTTAROM POST,

¶59

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:53162 WP No. 3830 of 2022 C/W WP No. 3813 of 2022 WP No. 3818 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶61

MADHURAI, TAMIL NADU - 625 020.

¶62

...RESPONDENTS

¶63

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.4 IS SERVED)

¶64

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18TH SEPTEMBER 2021 PASSED BY THE VII ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, ACMM COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-3) IN MVC NO.3910/2019 AT ANNEXURE-A IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶65

IN WP NO. 3818/2022

¶66

BETWEEN:

¶67

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SY NO 13, 14TH KM, NAGASANDRA, BANGALORE TUMKUR ROAD, NH - 4, BANGALORE - 560 073. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICER

¶68

...PETITIONER

¶69

(BY SRI. SHILPA SHAH., ADVOCATE)

¶70

AND:

¶71

SMT SHANTHI, W/O SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶72

KUM SHARANYA, D/O SUBRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,

¶73

MAST. VIGNESH, S/O SUBRAMANI,

¶74

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:53162 WP No. 3830 of 2022 C/W WP No. 3813 of 2022 WP No. 3818 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶75

AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS,

¶76

RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.9, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI, R T NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 032.

¶77

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD., 1ST FLOOR, MANGALA PUNARBHAVA, NEXT TO BRIGADE TOWERS, BRIGADE ROAD, BENGALURU.

¶78

M/S SUHALAYA TRAVELS PVT LTD., NO.16B, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST STREET, HALASURU, BANGALORE - 560 008.

¶79

SRI KARUPASWAMY, PROJECT DIRECTOR,

¶80

M/S MURUGAN ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, PWD AND HIGHWAYS 1ST CLASS, STATE LEVEL NO.2/203, ANDARKOTTAROM POST, MADHURAI, TAMIL NADU - 625 020.

¶81

SRI VENKATARAVI, SAFETY EXPERT, M S V INTERNATIONAL INC, C/O SRI VENKATARAMAN NILAYA, NO.168/169, FLAT NOS.3 AND 4, MUNICIPAL LAYOUT, 2ND MAIN ROAD, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶82

¶83

NC: 2024:KHC:53162 WP No. 3830 of 2022 C/W WP No. 3813 of 2022 WP No. 3818 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶84

MURUGAN,

¶85

M/S MURUGAN ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, PWD AND HIGHWAYS 1ST CLASS, STATE LEVEL, NO.2/203, ANDARKOTTAROM POST, MADHURAI, TAMIL NADU - 625 020

¶86

...RESPONDENTS

¶87

(BY SRI. PRAKASH M H., ADVOCATE)

¶88

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE W.P. CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.18.9.2021 PASSED BY THE VII ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND ACMM COURT (SCCH-3) IN MVC NO.04/2019 AT ANNEXURE-A IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶89

IN WP NO. 3822/2022

¶90

BETWEEN:

¶91

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, HAVING OFFICE AT SY NO.13, 14^TH KM NAGASANDRA, BANGALORE TUMIKUR ROAD NH-4, BANGALORE - 560 073. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICER

¶92

...PETITIONER

¶93

(BY SRI. SHILPA GHANSHYAMBHAI SHAH., ADVOCATE)

¶94

AND:

¶95

SRI HEMANTH KUMAR, S/O SHIVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT 2^ND CROSS, NEAR BHARATHI PUBLIC SCHOOL,

¶96

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:53162 WP No. 3830 of 2022 C/W WP No. 3813 of 2022 WP No. 3818 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶97

BBAU REDDY LAYOUT, BANALORE NORTH, BANGALORE - 560 032.

¶98

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INS. CO LTD., 1ST FLOOR, MANGALA PUNARBHAVA, NEXT TO BRIGADE TOWERS, BRIGADE ROAD, BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶99

M/S SUHALAYA TRAVELS PVT LTD., NO.16B, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST STREET, HALASURU BANGALORE - 560 008. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶100

SRI KARUPASWAMY, PROJECT DIRECTOR, M/S MURUGAN ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, PWD AND HIGHWAYS 1ST CLASS, STATE LEVEL, NO.2/203, ANDARKOTTAROM POST, MADHURAI, TAMIL NADU - 625 020.

¶101

SRI VENKATARAVI, SAFETY EXPERT, M S V INERNATINAL INC., C/O SRI VENKATARAMAN NILAYA, NO.168/169, FLAT NOS.3 AND 4, MUNICIPAL LAYOUT, 2ND MAIN ROAD, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPEL, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.

¶102

MURUGAN,

¶103

M/S MURUGAN ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS,

¶104

10 -

¶105

NC: 2024:KHC:53162 WP No. 3830 of 2022 C/W WP No. 3813 of 2022 WP No. 3818 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶106

PWD AND HIGHWAYS 1ST CLASS, STATE LEVEL, NO.2/203 ANDARKOTTAROM POST, MADHURAI, TAMIL NADU - 625 020.

¶107

...RESPONDENTS

¶108

(BY SRI. PRAKASH M H., ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶109

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18TH SEPTEMBER 2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (SCCH-3) IN MVC.NO.1231/2019 AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶110

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶111

ORAL ORDER

¶112

In all these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) impleading them as respondents.

¶113

The claimants in MVC Nos.03/2019, 3910/2019, 04/2019 and 1231/2019, all filed applications under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to implead the petitioners on the ground that these petitioners were charge sheeted by the police and some negligence was attributed to these petitioners that they were responsible for the accident which resulted in death and injury.

¶114

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:53162 WP No. 3830 of 2022 C/W WP No. 3813 of 2022 WP No. 3818 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶115

Learned counsel for the petitioners in all these writ petition contend that, the claim arises out of an accident which happened on a public road and the vehicles that were involved in the accident were duly insured. She, therefore, contends that the petitioners cannot be proceeded against in an action under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, as liability to pay the compensation is only upon the insurer and no liability can be fastened upon the petitioners.

¶116

The learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand contended that, the police after investigating the accident had filed a charge sheet against the petitioners and it was found that the petitioners were responsible for the accident in some measure and therefore, the petitioners were sought to be brought on record in the claim petitions.

¶117

The claim petitions were filed claiming compensation from the owner and the insurer of the vehicle, which was responsible for the accident resulting in death and injury to certain persons. The tribunal could determine the person liable to pay the compensation. However, the Tribunal is not invested with the power to fasten liability on any person

¶118

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:53162 WP No. 3830 of 2022 C/W WP No. 3813 of 2022 WP No. 3818 of 2022 AND 1 OTHER

¶119

other than the owner and the insurer of the vehicles involved in the accident. Under the circumstances, these petitioners were neither proper nor necessary parties in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act. The Trial Court, committed an error of sorts in allowing the applications and directed the impleadment of the petitioners herein. Therefore, the impugned order is one passed without application of mind and therefore, warrants interference.

¶120

Hence, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the applications filed by the claimants to implead the petitioners are all rejected.

¶121

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶122

THM

¶123

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

National Highways Authority of India v. Anjanappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Highways Authority of India v. Anjanappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B R Anitha Vs B R Swamynathan

Smt Sudhamani J Vs Smt Nagarathnamma

Smt. Bhagya Vs Smt. Siddagangamma

Putte Gowda Vs D H Sathish

Smt. K. C. Rathnamma Vs Smt. Kempamma

Sri. Kumaraswamy Vs Sri. S. K. Srinivasa