IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.25991 OF 2014 (GM-AC) BETWEEN:
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Shankar Building, Mosque Road, Udupi Taluk & District, Now Represented by its Regional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Subharam Complex, 144, M.G.Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
(By Sri. A.N.Krishna Swamy, Advocate) AND:
1. Smt. Sujatha, W/o Late. Dr.V.N.Raja, Now aged about 41 years, 2. Baby Anushri, D/o Late. Dr.V.N.Raja, Now aged about 16 years, ...Petitioner Since minor represented by Natural Guardian/Mother The 1st Respondent herein Both R/a A-1, Kailash Quarters, M.I.T. Manipal, Udupi Taluk & District – 574 112.
…RESPONDENTS (By Sri. M.N.Umesh, Adv. For Sri. S.D.N. Prasad, Adv.) ************ This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order passed on I.A.No. IX as per Annexure – F in MVC No.320/2004 passed by the Court of the District, and Sessions Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udupi dated 24.04.2014 and allow the application on I.A.No.9 filed before the Tribunal and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.04.2014 passed by the Prl. Sr. Civil Judge, Udupi on I.A. IX in MVC No.320/2004 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.
2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein have filed a claim petition contending that they are the wife and daughter of Dr. V.N. Raju; that on 03.10.2003, he was proceeding on his two-wheeler towards Udupi, after finishing his work on the left side of the road. At that time, the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No.KA-19/8768 came in a rash and negligent manner from opposite side and dashed against the two-wheeler which resulted in injury to Dr. V.N. Raju and he succumbed to injuries. The petitioner contended that lorry bearing Registration No. KA-19/8768 was falsely implicated. The MACT passed the Judgment and Award on 29.03.2007. Being aggrieved, both the claimants as well as insurance company filed appeals in MFA No.11446/2007 and MFA No.7323/2007 respectively. The Division Bench of this Court has disposed of the appeals on 27.11.2012 by remanding the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to dispose of the matter expeditiously by giving opportunity to both parties to adduce additional evidence both oral and documentary to substantiate their respective cases, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. The Tribunal was directed to dispose of the case within eight months.
3. After the matter was remitted back, Insurance Company has filed application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC on 16.04.2014. The Tribunal has rejected the application on 24.04.2014. Being aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed by the Insurance Company.
4. This Court while disposing the appeals in MFA No.11446/2017 and MFA No.7323/2007 on 27.11.2012, has given a specific direction that parties have to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing either personally or through their counsel and also permitted the parties to file necessary application for adducing additional evidence both oral and documentary to substantiate their respective cases. Now that application having been filed after the lapse of time fixed by this Court, same was rejected by the Tribunal by holding that there is a specific direction from this Court to conclude the matter within eight months which expires on 06.04.2014 and the application has been filed on 16.04.2014.
However, in the interest of justice and also that this Court on the earlier occasion has permitted the parties to file necessary application, in order to give one more opportunity, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. I.A. IX filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC is allowed with a cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to the claimants.
Matter is remitted back to the Tribunal. Tribunal is directed to permit cross-examination of PW-2 on the next date of hearing. If there is any inconvenience, the Tribunal shall fix a next date and on that date, the Insurance company has to complete the cross-examination of PW-2. Tribunal is directed to complete the proceedings and pass an order within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE sac*