IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR C.R.P. NO.238/2017 BETWEEN:
1. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O. ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
2. SMT. GIRIJAMMA W/O. BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT KENGATTE VILLAGE, MUDDENAHALLI POST, SHIKARIPUR TALUK-577427. (BY SRI.PRASAD B.S., ADV.,) AND:
1. SMT. RANGAMMA W/O. ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, ... PETITIONERS 2. JAGADEESHA S/O. SOMASHEKHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, RESP. NO.1 AND 2 ARE R/AT: KENGATTE VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577427. SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE HARSHA COMPLEX, OPP. TO SACRED HEART CHURTCH, SHIMOGA-577201, REPTD BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
... RESPONDENTS THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.3.2017 PASSED IN MISC. NO.7/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM AND ADDL. MACT-VII, SHIMOGGA, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER IX RULE 13 OF CPC., AND ETC., THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by the order passed in Misc. No.7/2016 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, CJM and Addl. MACT-VII, Shimogga dated 16.03.2017.
3. The petitioners are respondent Nos.1 and 2 in Misc.No.7/2016 preferred by respondent No.3 – National Insurance Company Ltd., under the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 r/w Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act praying that the ex-parte judgment and award passed in MVC No.1/2013 dated 13.08.2013 be recalled and the petition be restored for disposal on merits. Miscellaneous petition was canvassed on the ground that the parties i.e. petitioners and respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are from the same family and that the petitioners herein who are the owners of the vehicle insured with respondent No.3 had got involved in a self accident but thereafter in collusion with respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein had hatched a plan and planted the tractor and trailer in the complaint regarding the accident to fraudulently claim compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. It was also contended that notice issued by the Tribunal was not served upon them and that the award passed by the Tribunal is vitiated by fraud. It is also contended that upon notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are alleged to be the driver and owner of the offending vehicle appeared in MVC No.1/2013 and filed their objections on 12.7.2013 and subsequently issues were framed on 19.7.2013 and evidence was completed on 02.08.2013 and the claim petition came to be disposed of by award dated 13.08.2013.
4. The lower appellate court after taking note of the speed with which the proceedings have been concluded and also after placing reliance on the fact that no notice is served on the insurer and also additionally taking note of the fact that the insurer- respondent No.3 herein had already deposited the amount deemed it fit to recall the judgment and award by allowing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 of M.V.
Act in order to enable the parties to have the issue of fraud adjudicated by the Tribunal by leading appropriate evidence.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the Court erred in recalling the award and restoring the case on its file. He would further contend that respondent No.3 having deposited the sum and thereby having complied with the award it ought to have preferred an appeal and thereafter, the appellate Court after assessing the merits should have remanded the matter for reappraisal by the Tribunal and hence, the order passed is erroneous. He would pray the impugned order warrants interference at the hands of this Court.
6. Perused the order impugned herein.
7. From a perusal of the order, it is seen that the Tribunal has proceeded to dispose of the claim petition in a tearing hurry. It is specifically alleged that;
(i) respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal and the claimants are relatives (from the same family).
(ii) The alleged offending vehicle has been planted.
(iii) The claimants who are involved in a self accident are not entitled to lay a claim.
8. The above allegations coupled with the assertion of respondent No.3 – insurer, that no notice is served upon the insurance company, in the considered opinion of this Court, is sufficient cause for the Court below to exercise its power under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C., Hence, this Court does not find any good ground which would warrant interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, petition stands rejected.
9. The Trial Court while considering and disposing of the claim Petition in MVC No.1/2013 shall not be influenced by the observations made in Misc.
No.7/2016 or the observations made in this Court while disposing of the Civil Revision Petition and shall dispose of the claim petition on merits uninfluenced by the observations of this Court or those in the Misc. No.7/2016.
Sd/- JUDGE BS