IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.55424 OF 2013 (GM-AC) BETWEEN THE MANAGER BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED GROUND FLOOR NO.31, TBR TOWER 1ST CROSS, NEW MISSION ROAD NEAR BANGALORE STOCK EXCHANGE BANGALORE – 560 027 BY ITS ASST. MANAGER SRI. KIRAN PUJAR, S/O. LATE. IRAPPA, AGED 33 YEARS ... PETITIONER (BY SRI O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE) AND 1. BHAGYA W/O LATE LOKESHAPPA B AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 2. MEGHA B.L D/O LATE LOKESHAPPA B AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS 3. MANDHARA D/O LATE LOKESHAPPA B AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.3 IS MINOR BY M/G RESPONDENT NO.1-BHAGYA R1 TO R3 ARE R/O WEAVERS COLONY SRINAGAR NOW R/O DEVAPURA VILLAGE MADADAKERE H0BLI HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 501.
4. SHANTHALA JAGADISH W/O JAGADISH MAJOR R/O T.G. COLONY JANANI TOURS AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.26, REDDY BUILDING, DASARAHALLI, TUMKUR ROAD BANGALORE-560 057. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; V/O DATED 11.02.2014-NOTICE TO R4 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2013 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ITINERARY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, HOSDURGA IN M.V.C. NO.340 OF 2011 VIDE ANNESURE-E AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 31.10.2013 passed by the MACT, Hosdurga on I.A.No.1 in MVC No.340/2011 whereby, the Tribunal has rejected the application which has been filed by the Insurance Company - petitioner herein.
2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein have filed a claim petition in MVC No.340/2011 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Hosdurga for compensation of Rs.32 lakhs due to death of Lokeshappa B in road traffic accident. On 07.03.2011, the deceased Lokeshappa was going in front of Singasandra Petrol Bunk as pedestrian, the driver of the TATA Sumo bearing registration No.KA-02-D-9663 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased. Pursuant to the summons issued by the MACT, the respondent – Insurance Company has filed written statement as per Annexure-B. Subsequently, Insurance Company has filed an application under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC seeking permission to file additional and subsequent pleadings vide Annexure-C.
3. The Senior Civil Judge & MACT by its order dated 31.10.2013 has rejected the application filed by the respondent – Insurance Company holding as follows:
“6. At the outset, it is important to note that whether respondent No.2 has took said specific defence or objection in his earlier objection filed in the instant petition are looked into. It is true, at para-5 of the objection, it is stated that, the driver has driving the vehicle without knowing the driving and without obtaining license from licensing authority as contemplated under Sections 3, 8 and 9 of M.V. Act. For that, it is also contended that, respondent No.2 Company not liable to pay any compensation, since driver has no driving license to drive the LMV Cab vehicle.
7. It is pertinent to note that, said contention which already contended by respondent No.2 company is suffice to hold the contentions that going to be impleaded through additional pleadings. There is no need for additional pleadings as contended by the respondent company. Therefore, I hold that, instant application cannot be taken into consider. Thus I answer above point in Negative.”
4. Even as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pappu and Others v. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Another reported in AIR 2018 SC 592, even if there is fake driving licence the Insurance Company has to pay compensation and then recover the same.
5. Be that as it may, since the claim petition is filed in the year 2011, the claimants have not got even a single pai of compensation. Under these circumstances, in the interest of the parties, writ petition is allowed. IA.No.1 filed by the petitioner Under Order 8 Rule 9 of CPC is allowed. The Insurance Company is permitted to file additional and subsequent pleadings and to amend the statement of objections.
6. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of MVC No.340/2011 within four months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE nms