IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY MFA No.10618 OF 2010 (MV) BETWEEN:
K.Naveen Kumar S/o. Thimmappa Poojary, Aged 29 years, Residing at Kattadabail House, Gerukatte Post, Odinala Village, Belthagady Taluk, D.K. Pin-574 214.
(By Sri. G.Ravishankar Shastry, Advocate) AND:
Mr. P.Vittal Pai Since dead by Lr 1. Ravikala V.Pai, W/o. P.Vittal Pai, Major, Resident of Netrekere, Vittal Bantwal Taluk, D.K.
Pin-574 211.
2. G.Narayana S/o. Janardhana, Major, Resident of Guruvayanakere, Belthangady, Belthagady Taluk, D.K.District, Pin-574 214.
…Appellant 3. National Insurance Company, Branch office I Floor, Anand Building, Post Kulai, Mangalore Taluk, D.K, Represented by its Manager, Pin-575 004.
(Sri. A.N.Krishnaswamy, Advocate for R-3; R1 – Served; R2 – notice dispensed with vide order dated:18/07/2013) …Respondents *** This MFA is filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and award dated:29.04.2004 passed in MVC No.926/2000 on the file of MACT, puttur, Dakshina Kannada, dismissing the claim petition for compensation.
This MFA coming on for Hearing this day, the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T The claim petition of the present petitioner filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “M.V. Act” for brevity), for compensation from the respondents with respect to the injuries said to have been sustained by him in a road traffic accident was dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Puttur (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal” for brevity) only on the ground that the Legal Representatives of the owner of the alleged offending vehicle who died during the pendency of the claim petition was not brought on record.
2. Challenging the said finding which resulted in the dismissal of his claim petition, the claimant has preferred this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant in his brief arguments submitted that while interpreting Section 155 of M.V.Act in the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore Vs. Smt. Nanjamma and others reported in 2003(4) Kar.L.J. 291, a co-ordinate bench of this Court was pleased to hold that where there is a valid insurance policy as on the date of accident covering the risk, the Legal Representatives of the owner of the offending vehicle need not be brought on record.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company submits that in view of the settled position of law as per Section 155 of the M.V. Act, he has no objection in remanding the matter to the Tribunal for its consideration afresh in accordance with law.
5. Relying upon Section 155 of M.V. Act, a co- ordinate bench of this Court in Nanjamma’s case (supra) was pleased to observe that where it is admitted that there is a valid insurance policy as on the date of accident covering the risk, it is not necessary for the claimant to bring the Legal Representatives of the deceased owner of the vehicle who dies during the pendency of the claim petition, on record.
6. In the case on hand also, it is not in dispute, as on the date of the alleged accident, the alleged offending vehicle was under a valid insurance coverage and the policy was covering the risk. However, the claimant has not also contended before the Tribunal that despite his best effort he could not ascertain as to who are the Legal Representatives of the deceased owner of the vehicle. In such a situation, non-bringing of the Legal Representatives of the deceased owner of the offending vehicle, during the pendency of the claim petition would not be the sole ground for dismissing the claim petition without deciding the same on merit.
7. Since the Tribunal by its impugned judgment has not decided the claim petition on merit, but has dismissed the claim petition without considering it on merit, only on the ground of not bringing the Legal Representatives of the deceased owner on record, the said judgment of the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition deserves to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded to the Tribunal for its fresh consideration in accordance with law.
8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by appellant/claimant is allowed in part.
The judgment and award dated 29-04-2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Puttur, Dakshina Kannada, is hereby set aside;
The Tribunal is directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above.
Since the claim petition in the Tribunal being of the year 2000, as such, nearly 19 years have elapsed since then, the earliest disposal of the matter not later than four months from the date of appearance of the parties before the Tribunal would be highly appreciated.
To enable the Tribunal in that regard, the parties appearing in this matter are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 03-04-2019 at 11:00 a.m. without waiting for any fresh notice or summons from the Tribunal.
Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along with Lower Court records, if any, to the concerned Tribunal immediately;
The Tribunal shall also note that this Court by its order dated 09-06-2016 passed on Misc.Cvl.22457/2010 in this matter while condoning the delay in filing this appeal has denied interest to the claimant for a period of 2323 days, in case of award of compensation by the Tribunal, upon remand.
Sd/- JUDGE BMV*