Dismissed¶¶48

Ramakrishna Gowda v. Rangaiah

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2025WP/54504/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, WP No. 54504 of 2016 (GM-AC), decided 03.09.2025 by R. Nataraj, J. Impleadment of bank manager in motor accident claim rejected; Order I Rule 10(2) CPC; Section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; MVC No.69/2011, K.R. Pete; uninsured tractor-trailer KA-11/T-2870 and KA-11/T-2871; insurance premium debited to loan account; bank not a necessary party where claim is against registered owner; writ petition dismissed with liberty to pursue separate cause of action against the bank.

What did the court decide?

If the tractor-trailer was not insured by the bank even after it had deducted the insurance premiums, that would give the petitioners a different cause of action to proceed against the bank. ¶¶46

Ramakrishna Gowda Vs Rangaiah — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the tribunal erred in rejecting I.A.No.4 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code seeking impleadment of the Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Kikkeri branch as a necessary party in MVC No.69/2011.

¶¶39

Court's answer

If the tractor-trailer was not insured by the bank even after it had deducted the insurance premiums, that would give the petitioners a different cause of action to proceed against the bank.

¶¶46

Ratio / Principle

The bank cannot be made liable in proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as the claim is against the registered owner of the vehicle which caused the accident.

¶¶46

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 09.08.2016 passed by the tribunal in MVC No.69/2011 on I.A.No.4 is just and proper and does not warrant interference in the writ petition.ratio¶¶47
While dismissing the writ petition, it is open to the petitioner to proceed against the bank in accordance with law in any forum.ratio¶¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the owners of an uninsured tractor-trailer (registration Nos. KA-11/T-2870 and KA-11/T-2871) challenging the order dated 09.08.2016 of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R. Pet (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) in MVC No.69/2011, whereby their application I.A.No.4 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to implead the Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Kikkeri branch was rejected. The petitioners had contended that their father availed an agricultural tractor loan from the bank, which debited insurance premiums to the loan account and was duty-bound to insure the vehicle for 2011-2012. Held: even if the bank failed to insure the vehicle after deducting premiums, that would give the owners a different cause of action against the bank; however, the bank cannot be made liable in proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, since the claim lies against the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. The impugned order was held just and proper; the writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioners to proceed against the bank in accordance with law in any forum.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:34749 WP No. 54504 of 2016

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 54504 OF 2016 (GM-AC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAMAKRISHNA GOWDA S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶9

VENKATESH S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶10

K.K.THAMAIAH S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDING AT KOTAHALLI VILLAGE, KEKERE VILLAGE, K.R.PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571426.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. KSHITIJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

RANGAIAH S/O BORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶17

LAKSHMAMMA W/O RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶18

RAVI S/O NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:34749 WP No. 54504 of 2016

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NANJEGOWDA S/O LATE KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶22

CHANDRA S/O LATE KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶23

RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT KOTAHALLI VILLAGE, KIKERI HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571426.

¶24

PREMA W/O NAGARAJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT BERUHALLI VILLAGE, HAKKI HEBBAL HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571426

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. G.N. DHANANJAYA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;

¶27

VIDE ORDER DATED 29.01.2018, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.3 IS DISPENSED WITH;

¶28

NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.4, 5 AND 6)

¶29

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT K.R.PETE IN MVC NO.69/2011 AND IA NO.4 DATED 09.08.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶30

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

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34749 WP No. 54504 of 2016

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioners have challenged an order dated 09.08.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, K.R. Pet, in MVC No.69/2011 by which, an application - I.A.No.4 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code was rejected.

¶35

The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed MVC No.69/2011 claiming compensation for the death of their son in a road accident on 10.06.2011. The petitioners herein were the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 in the claim petition and that they were the owners of a tractor - trailer bearing registration No.KA-11/T-2870 and KA-11/T-2871 respectively, which were not duly insured.

¶36

During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioners herein filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code to implead Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Kikkeri branch as respondent. They contended that their father had availed a agricultural tractor loan from State Bank of Mysore, Kikkeri branch for purchasing the tractor and trailer and that the bank was debiting the insurance premium

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34749 WP No. 54504 of 2016

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

into the loan account of their father and that it was the responsibility of the bank to ensure that the vehicle was duly insured. Therefore, they proposed to implead the manager to establish their claim. This application was opposed by the claimants. The said application was rejected in terms of the impugned order. The petitioners are therefore before this Court challenging the same.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the assertions made in the application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code and contended that a specific statement was made in the affidavit accompanying the application that the tractor - trailer stood in the name of their predecessor - Kalegowda who had availed a loan from State of Bank Mysore, Kikkeri branch under agricultural tractor loan scheme. He contended that it was also mentioned that the bank had insured the vehicle and had debited the amount to the loan account of Sri. Kalegowda and that the bank was duty bound to ensure that the vehicle was insured for the year 2011 - 2012. He therefore, contends that the bank was a necessary party to the proceedings.

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34749 WP No. 54504 of 2016

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶44

counsel for the petitioners.

¶45

If the tractor - trailer possessed by the petitioners

¶46

was not insured by the bank, even after it had deducted the insurance premiums that would give a different cause of action to the petitioners to proceed against the bank. However, the bank cannot be made liable in proceedings under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as the claim is against the registered owner of the vehicle which had caused the accident.

¶47

In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 09.08.2016 passed by the tribunal in MVC No.69/2011 on I.A.No.4 is just and proper and does not warrant interference in this writ petition.

¶48

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However

¶49

it is open for the petitioner to proceed against the bank in accordance with law in any forum.

¶50

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶51

HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Ramakrishna Gowda v. Rangaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishna Gowda v. Rangaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Krishna Traders Vs State of Karnataka

Smt v Hamsaveni Vs the Principal Secretary

C. v. Rajappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Chamaraj H Patil Vs Commissioner

Smt Ambuja Vs State of Karnataka

Chamundeshwari Electricity Vs International Asset