IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1453 OF 2013 (MV) BETWEEN:
NARASE GOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S 1. SMT. NAGAMMA, W/O LATE NARASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 2. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI, D/O LATE NARASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 3. MR. ANAND KUMAR, S/O LATE NARASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.81 MARKANDEYA TEMPLE ROAD SRIGANDANAGARA BANGALORE – 560 092. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.B.KESHAVA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., D.O.6, ASHIRWAD, NO.20 9TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK JAYANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 011 REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
2. MR. NAGESH B.K., S/O MR. KENCHAPPA NO.99, 1ST MAIN ROAD RAGHAVENDRA EXTENSION BANGALORE – 560 050. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1.
R2 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 19-11-2013.) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.6.2012 PASSED IN MVC NO. 4903/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, DISMISSING IA FILED U/O 22, RULE 3 OF CPC, UNDER ORDER 22 RULE 9 OF CPC, AND U/SEC 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 16.06.2012 made in M.V.C.No.4903/2011 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore, rejecting the application filed by the applicants to come on record as the legal representatives of the deceased claimant.
2. The deceased Narasegowda sustained injury in a road traffic accident that occurred on 22.04.2011. He filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries he had sustained on 22.08.2011. During the pendency of the said claim petition, he died on 14.10.2011. The wife and children of deceased Narasegowda filed an application to come on record as the legal representatives of deceased claimant, along with an application for setting aside the abatement and also for condonation of delay. The said applications were objected by the Insurance Company. The Trial Court, after hearing the matter, rejected all the three I.As filed by the applicants to come on record as the legal representatives of the deceased. Hence, they have filed this appeal.
3. I heard Shri B. Keshava Murthy, Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri P.B. Raju, Advocate appearing for Respondent No.1 and perused the order impugned and other relevant records.
4. The occurrence of the accident and the claim petition filed by Narasegowda is not in dispute in this appeal. During the pendency of the claim petition, the said Narasegowda died on 14.10.2011. The legal representatives of deceased Narasegowda filed an application to come on record to prosecute the said claim petition. However, the Tribunal, without examining the matter in detail as to whether the legal representatives were eligible to come on record or not, proceeded to pass the order on merit holding that the applicants have failed to produce proper and necessary documents to show that the death occurred due to the accidental injury, and dismissed the application, which is contrary to law.
5. The issue raised in this appeal is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of SRI. NARAYANASWAMY (DECEASED) LRs vs. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, KOLAR reported in 2007 (4) KCCR 2704 (DB). The Division Bench of this Court has clearly held that the LR application filed by the legal representatives cannot be rejected without considering the application on merits.
6. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of law, the order passed by the Trial Court cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 16.06.2012 passed by the Trial Court is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court to consider the matter afresh taking note of the judgment of the Division Bench of this court and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
The Trial Court shall dispose of the claim petition as expeditiously as possible, not later than nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE KS