IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.26346 OF 2018 (GM-AC) BETWEEN:
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Tumkur Branch, 1st Floor Tumkur Shopping Complex B.H.Road, Tumkur – 572 102 Represented by T.P.Claims Hub Mahalakshmi Chambers, 2nd Floor M.G.Road, Bangalore – 560 001 By its duly Constituted Attorney (By Sri. Ravishankar C.R., Advocate) AND:
1. Kum. Shilpa Aged about 18 years D/o late Raja 2. Chi. Kiran Aged about 15 years S/o late Raja 3. Smt.Gowramma Aged about 44 years W/o Sri.Chandrappa The respondents No.1 & 2 are Minors, represented by their … Petitioner Natural guardian Aunty Smt.Gowramma The respondents No.1 to 3 are Residing at BGS Nagar Ashraya Colony, Kunigal Town Tumkur District – 572 101.
4. Sri.Abdul Jawad Aged major, S/o Sri. Ghouse Mohiddin R/o M.M.Road, Fort area Kunigal Town Tumkur District – 572 101.
… Respondents (Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are minors Petition dismissed against respondent No.4 vide order dated 02.07.2018) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records in MVC No.1402/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal, peruse the same and direct to set aside and quash the impugned order dated 22.05.2018 as per Annexure-A passed by the Court of Sr.Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal and consequently pass an order allowing the said application and direct R3 to furnish the document i.e., Annexure-E called for in the said application for proper appreciation of the claim petition and disposal in accordance with law.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Ravishankar C.R., learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission.
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 22.05.2018 by which an application filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to produce their transfer certificate or school admission book to prove their father’s name and date of birth, has been rejected.
4. Facts giving rise to the filing of this Writ Petition briefly stated that One Raja who was the son of Shivanna died unfortunately in an accident which took place on 23.08.2011. Thereupon, respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed an application seeking their impleadment. The aforesaid prayer was opposed by the petitioner herein on the ground that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not depending on the deceased. The Trial Court allowed the application for impleadment of the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application as aforesaid which has been rejected by the impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court ought to have appreciated that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are no way connected with the deceased.
6. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.
7. The Tribunal has held that the burden to prove the dependency is on the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and from perusal of the enclosed panchanama, prima facie, it appears that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have been shown to as the children of the deceased and respondent No.3 has been shown to as the wife of the brother of the deceased. Accordingly, the aforesaid application is rejected.
8. Even otherwise it is well settled in law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to correct all errors of a judgment of a Court acting within its limitation. It can be exercised where the orders is passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. [See: ‘JAI SINGH AND OTHERS VS. M.C.D. AND OTHERS’, (2010) 9 SCC 385, ‘SHALINI SHYAM SHETTY VS. RAJENDRA SHANKAR PATIL’, (2010) 8 SCC 329 and ‘RADHE SHYAM AND ANOTHER VS. CHABBI NATH AND OTHERS’, (2015) 5 SCC 423]. In the instant case, the impugned order neither suffers from the error apparent on the face of the record nor any jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE PRS/RV