IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.21828 OF 2016 (GM-AC) BETWEEN:
DYAVAIAH S.B.
S/O LATE BOOMARAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT. No.1466, HOSABADAVANE Dr. AMBEDKAR NAGAR HOLENARASIPURA TOWN AND TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573211.
(By Mr. ROOPESHA B, ADV., (ABSENT)) AND:
1. ERAIAH @ GUNDAPPA S/O DYAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT. Dr. AMBEDKAR NAGAR HOLENARASIPURA TOWN AND TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573211.
2. D.S. KUMAR S/O SANNAMUDHAIAH MAJOR R/AT. DEVARAMUDHANAHALLI GRAMA HALLIMYSURU HOBLI HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573211.
3. H.C. JAGADISH S/O CHIKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT. HUCHANAKOPALU VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI … PETITIONER HOLENARASIPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573211.
… RESPONDENTS (R1, R2 & R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records in MVC No.993/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Holenarasipur and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER None for the petitioner.
None for the respondents though served.
2. In this petition under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Claims Tribunal by which application preferred by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short), has been rejected.
3. Facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that the respondent No.1 sustained injuries in a road accident on 27.05.2013. He filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, claiming compensation on 30.06.2014. The petitioner herein filed the written statement on 25.06.2015 denying the claim of respondent No.1 in which it was stated that he has sold the vehicle in favour of one Jagadish on 05.10.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10(3) of the Code seeking impleadment of respondent No.3 as proposed respondent No.3. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the Trial Court by the impugned order.
4. I have perused the record as well as the impugned order. The application has been rejected mainly on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any documents in support of the plea that respondent No.3 is the owner in question. It ought to have been appreciated by the Claims Tribunal that in the aforesaid application, the petitioner had stated that he had sold the vehicle involved in the accident on 05.10.2009 and respondent No.3 had executed a consent letter in which he had agreed that in respect of all the cases arising out of the said vehicle, he shall be responsible. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Claims Tribunal. In any case, the presence of the petitioner is necessary for fair and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the matter. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from the error apparent on the face of the record. The same is quashed and set aside. The Trial Court is directed to implead the petitioner as respondent No.3 and proceed with the trial expeditiously.
Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Claims Tribunal.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV