Allowed¶10

The Managing Director v. Prathikasha Lokesh Naik

Motor Vehicles Act – Claim petition under Section 166 – Impleadment of third party

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2025WP/28110/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleadment of Toll Plaza operator as respondent in MVC claim petition refused; Article 227 writ petition allowed; Sections 165 and 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Rule 235 Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989; Order I Rule 10(2) and Rule 10(4) read with Section 151 CPC; ambulance bearing KA-20-AA-6045; accident dated 20.07.2022 near Shirur Toll Plaza on NH-66; MVC No.4369/2022; III Addl. Judge and MACT Bengaluru (SCCH-18); alleged negligence (cow on freeway); witness versus party distinction; IRB Westcoast Tollway Ltd; United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; death of Lokesh Naik.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 30.03.2023 passed in MVC No.4369/2022 by the Court of III Addl. Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) on IA No.3 set aside. ¶10

The Managing Director Vs Prathikasha Lokesh Naik — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 30.03.2023 passed in MVC No.4369/2022 by the Court of III Addl. Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) on IA No.3 set aside.

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing IA No.3 impleading the petitioner, operator of the Shirur Toll Plaza, as a party/respondent to the claim petition in MVC No.4369/2022. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

Under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Claims Tribunal is constituted for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents arising out of the use of motor vehicles.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

The accident arose out of the use of the offending motor vehicle, which is undisputedly owned by respondent No.5, and except that vehicle no other vehicle was involved in the accident.

¶48

Key takeaways

Rule 235 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 requires the Claims Tribunal, on receipt of an application seeking compensation, to issue notice to the owner, the driver and the insurer of the vehicle/vehicles involved in the accident.ratio¶51
If negligence of the Toll Plaza operator is alleged, it is open to respondent No.5 to summon the petitioner as a witness before the Claims Tribunal to prove that negligence.ratio¶52
It is not open to a party alleging such negligence to seek impleadment of the Toll Plaza operator as a party/respondent to the claim petition; accordingly, the Tribunal was not justified in allowing IA No.3 filed by respondent No.5.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Vehicles Act — Claim petition under Section 166 — Impleadment of third party — Owner of offending ambulance sought impleadment of the operator of the Shirur Toll Plaza on National Highway-66 as a party/respondent to the claim petition, alleging negligence (cow lying on the freeway at the Toll Plaza), under Order I Rule 10(2) and Rule 10(4) read with Section 151 CPC — Held: The Claims Tribunal under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is constituted to adjudicate claims for compensation arising out of the use of motor vehicles; Rule 235 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 contemplates notice to the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident; the accident arose solely out of the use of the offending vehicle owned by respondent No.5 and only its driver was charge sheeted; a person alleged to be negligent may be summoned as a witness before the Claims Tribunal but cannot be impleaded as a party/respondent to the claim petition — Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India allowed; order of the III Addl. Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) dated 30.03.2023 on IA No.3 in MVC No.4369/2022 set aside.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40940 WP No. 28110 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 28110 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR IRB WESTCOAST TOLLWAY LTD (REP BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA NAIK) KADIKODI, DHARESHWAR KUMTA (TOLL BOOTH AT SHIROOR) KUNDAPUR TALUK - 576 228 UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. UDAY K S.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

PRATHIKASHA LOKESH NAIK D/O LATE LOKESH MADEV NAIK AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS.

¶16

PRANAV LOKESH NAIK S/O LATE LOKESH MADEV NAIK AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS.

¶17

MADEV HANUMANTH NAIK S/O LATE HANUMANTH NAIK AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.

¶18

SMT. GANGE MADEV NAIK W/O MADEV HANUMANTH NAIK AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.

¶19

RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 BEING MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR GRANDMOTHER SMT. GANGE MADEV NAIK

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:40940 WP No. 28110 of 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THE 4^TH RESPONDENT HEREIN AND R-1 TO R-4 ARE RESIDING AT HADAGERI MUTT HONNAVARA TALUK UTTARA KANNADA - 571 251.

¶23

GANESH S. SHEJAWADKAR S/O SUBHAS AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS PRABHAT NAGAR, HONNAVARA UTTARA KANNADA - 581401 (REGISTERED OWNER OF AMBULANCE BEARING KA-20-AA-6045)

¶24

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE T.P. HUB KRISHI BHAVAN, 5TH & 6TH FLOOR NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶25

ROSHAN FERNANDES (AMBULANCE DRIVER ) MAJOR IN AGE C/O SRI DEVI MULTI SPECIALITY HOSPITAL, NEAR BHATKAL CIRCLE HONNAVARA - 581 334.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI K.V. NAIK, ADV., FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI ASHOK MESTA, ADV., FOR R-5 & R-7; SRI B.C. SEETHARAMA RAO, ADV., FOR R-6)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30/03/2023 IN M.V.C. NO. 4369/2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF III ADDL. SMALL CAUSES COURT (SCCH-18) ON I.A. NO. III BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶29

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:40940 WP No. 28110 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 30.03.2023 passed on IA No.3 in MVC No.4369/2022 by the Court of III Addl. Judge and MACT, Bengaluru (SCCH-18).

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶37

Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein had filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the jurisdictional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation towards the death of Lokesh Naik in a motor vehicle accident that had taken place on 20.07.2022. In the said proceedings, originally the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle, which is an ambulance bearing registration number KA20/AA6045 were arrayed as respondents. IA No.3 was filed by respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle under Order I Rule 10 (2) and Rule 10 (4) read with Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to implead the petitioner herein as party/respondent in the MVC case. Petitioner, who appeared

¶38

before the Tribunal had filed objections opposing the prayer made in IA No.3. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40940 WP No. 28110 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

allowed the application and being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that petitioner is a Company operating Toll Plaza at Shirur on the National Highway - 66. The accident had taken place near the Toll Plaza. Petitioner is not the owner of the offending vehicle and except the offending vehicle which belongs to respondent No.1, there is no other vehicle involved in the motor vehicle accident in question in the present case. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in allowing IA No.3.

¶43

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5/owner of the offending vehicle submits that since there was a cow sleeping on the freeway at Shirur Toll Plaza, the accident in question had taken place and therefore, petitioner, who is operating the Toll Plaza at Shirur was guilty of negligence. The Tribunal was therefore, justified in allowing IA No.3. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:40940 WP No. 28110 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides for constitution of Claims Tribunal by the State Government and a reading of Section 165 of the Act, would make it very clear that the Claims Tribunal are constituted for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to persons, arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. Therefore, it is apparent that the Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, is constituted for the purpose of adjudicating upon the claims for compensation in respect of accident arising out of the use of vehicle.

¶48

In the case on hand, the accident in question has taken place out of the use of the offending motor vehicle, which undisputedly is owned by the respondent No.5 herein. Except the said vehicle, no other vehicle is involved in the accident in question. The driver of the offending vehicle is the only person, who has been charge sheeted in the criminal case that was registered in respect of the accident in question that had taken place on 20.07.2022.

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:40940 WP No. 28110 of 2023

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Rule 235 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, provides for notice to the parties involved. A reading of the said provision of law would make it clear that the Claims Tribunal on receipt of an application seeking compensation in a case of motor vehicle accident is required to issue notice to the owner, the driver and the insurer of the vehicle/vehicles involved in the accident in question.

¶52

According to respondent No.5, since petitioner who was operating the Toll Plaza at Shirur on National Highway - 66 had not kept the ambulance freeway open and clear and it is because of the negligence of the petitioner, the accident in question has taken place. If that is so, it is always open for the respondent No.5 to summon the petitioner as a witness before the Claims Tribunal to prove his negligence in the motor vehicle accident in question, but it is not open for the respondent No.5 to seek impleadment of the petitioner as a party/respondent to the claim petition. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing IA No.3 filed by respondent No.5. Accordingly, the following order:-

¶53