IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO M.F.A.No.7945/2007 (MV) BETWEEN THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, K H ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER KSRTC, BENGALURU.
(BY SRI B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE) AND SRI M GANGARAJU S/O MALLANNA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/O UDYAPURA KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD BENGALURU – 560 082.
(BY SRI MALLESHGOWDA, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANT …RESPONDENT THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:11.12.2006 PASSED IN MVC No.2573/2006 ON THE FILE OF XIX ADDITIONAL SCJ & MEMBER, MACT, METOPOLITAN AREA, BENGALURU, SCCH-17, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.77,000/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The learned counsel appearing for appellant is present and learned counsel for respondent absent. He was absent on the previous date of hearing as well.
2. This is the second round of litigation. This appeal is preferred by the Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’) against the judgment and award dated 11/12/2006 passed in MVC No.2573/2006 by XIX Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-17) under which, an amount of Rs.77,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit, was granted, and it was challenged before this Court in MFA No.7945/2007.
In the said case, the learned counsel for the appellant on 23.8.2010 filed an application under order XLI Rule 27 of CPC for production of additional documents and document Nos.1 to 6.
3. In the order dated 23.8.2010, this Court ordered that the said application under order XLI Rule 27 of CPC that was numbered as Misc.Cvl.6576/2009 will be considered along with the main appeal. However, the said appeal came to be disposed of on 2nd November 2010 and it was dismissed and the application under order XLI Rule 27 was not disposed of on its merits along with the main appeal on merits. The documents which were sought to be produced are as under:
(i) Investigation Report;
(ii) Letter dated 30.5.2007 from Security and Vigilance officer to the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Kaggalipura, Kanakapura Taluk;
(iii) Letter dated 30.5.2007 from Security and Vigilance officer to the Resident Medical Officer, Victoria Hospital, Bangalore;
(iv) Reply from the Medical Officer, Kaggalipura and extract from the OPD register;
(v) Extract from Accident Register of Victoria Hospital;
(vi) Complaint of the respondent dated 4.4.2006 to Thalaghattapura Polcie Station and the FIR;
(vii) Complaint dated 8.8.2008 from the appellant Corporation and the FIR.
4. In the meanwhile, review petition was preferred by the Corporation in R.P.No.32/2011 by producing the documents which came to be allowed by this Court on 1st June 2016 with the following observations:-
“Para-5: It is evident from the records in MFA No.7945/2007 that Corporation had made an application – Misc.Civil No.6576/2009 seeking production of additional documents. At the time of hearing of the appeal, though an order was passed on 23.8.2010 to consider the application along with main, the said application has not been considered while disposing of the appeal. I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration. Hence, the judgment and award dated 2.11.2010 in MFA No.7945/2007is hereby recalled and the appeal is restored to file. Review petition is allowed accordingly. Post MFA No.7945/2007 before the appropriate Court.
Para-6: In view of the disposal of the review petition as above, Misc.Cvl.No.1249/2011 does not survive for consideration. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.”
5. By virtue of allowing of Review petition, MFA 7945/2007 came to be restored. Thus, the matter has come up before this Court for consideration after disposal of the Review Petition No. 32/2011. Therefore, proceedings in MFA 7945/2007 would revive for considering the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC on merits.
6. However, today, when the matter is taken up for disposal, learned counsel for the respondent is again absent.
7. In the context of consequences of the proceeding which have taken place as stated above, application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC deserves to be allowed and the documents that were produced along with the said application to be considered in the appeal. Thus, Miscellaneous First Appeal is back to its file and the matter assumes significance to consider the documents produced by the appellant in the application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that invariably those documents have direct bearing over the judgment. Learned counsel for respondent/claimant is absent as he was.
9. In the circumstances, further enquiry is required.
Thus, it is just and proper to remand the matter to the jurisdictional Tribunal.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed as under:
(i) Judgment and award dated 11/12/2006 passed in MVC No.2573/2006 by the XIX Additional Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-17) is hereby set aside and the matter stands remanded to the Tribunal, with a direction to the learned Member to dispose of the same by considering the documents which are produced along with the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC.
(ii) In order to avoid wastage of time, the parties are hereby directed to present before the Jurisdictional Tribunal without waiting for further notice from the Tribunal as the same is notified under this order.
(iii) The date for their appearance before the Tribunal is on 22nd August 2017.
(iv) Office is hereby directed to send back the records whatever received along with I.A. filed for production of additional documents along with those documents.
Sd/- JUDGE tsn*