IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.47117/2016 (GM-AC) BETWEEN:
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
BHARATH BLDG.
NEAR HAMPANKATTA POST OFFICE P.M. RAO ROAD HAMPANAKATTA MANGALORE D.K. REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT MANAGER & AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AT REGIONAL OFFICE NO.144, SHUBHARAM COMPLEX M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S. SRISHAILA, ADV.) AND:
1. MR. MANOHAR S/O. KRISHNA BELCHANDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O. SHIVARATHRI BETTU HOUSE PERMANKI POST ULAIBETTU VILLAGE MANGALORE TALUK-560 102.
2. MR. AVIL RODRIGUES S/O.WILLIAM RODRIGUES AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O. VINIKAN MAIDAN SARIPALLA ROAD KULASHEKAR MANGALORE-560 102. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN THE CASE MVC 581/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE AND MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, DK MANGALORE, EXAMINE THE SAME AND ON BEING SATISFIED OF THE ILLEGALITY AND UNJUSTNESS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.08.2015 PASSED THEREIN REJECTING THE APPLICATION IA NO.3 UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 07.08.2015 passed in M.V.C.No.581/2013.
2. The petitioner herein is respondent No.2 in the claim petition in M.V.C.No.581/2013. In the pending proceedings, the petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No.3 under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code seeking impleadment of the owner and the insurer of another vehicle which is said to have been involved in the same accident. The said application, on consideration has been rejected by the Tribunal. It is against such order, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. In a matter of the present nature, keeping in view the nature of contention as put forth seeking impleadment and also keeping in view the fact that the claim petition filed by the claimant would stand delayed by the said procedure, in any event, the contention as put forth would be available to the petitioner to be urged in the claim petition before the Court below. If ultimately, the finding goes against the petitioner herein in the judgment to be passed by the MACT and in such event, the non-impleadment of the parties is a matter which would require consideration, the petitioner is granted the liberty of raising the grounds as urged herein in the proposed appeal that would be filed.
Leaving open such contention, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST