IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.28768 OF 2017 (GM-AC) BETWEEN:
M/s. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, T.G.M.A.Building, J.C.Road, Tumkur-572101.
Represented by its Deputy Manager ... Petitioner (By Sri. B.S.Umesh, Advocate) AND:
1. Neelakantappa T.R., S/o. Late T.G.Rudrappa, Aged about 51 years, 2. Pushpadevi W/o. Neelakantappa, Aged about 49 years, Respondents 1 & 2 are R/at 2nd Cross, K.N.S. Mil Road, Santhepet, Tumkur-572101.
3. Prasannakumar M.N., S/o. Nijalingappa, R/at Madapura (post), Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District-572216.
... Respondents (By Sri. K.Shantharaj, Advocate for R1 and R2, R3 is served, but unrepresented) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records in MVC No.837/2014 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Tumakuru and set aside the order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Tumakuru in MVC No.837/2014 vide Annexure-G and allow the said application for impleading.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the court made the following:
ORDER The Insurance Company has filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.03.2017 on IA made in MVC No.837/2014 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru rejecting the application filed by the Insurance Company under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading one Suresh, Proprietor of M/s Saketh Motors, Tumakuru as a party.
2. The present respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the claimants before the Trial Court and they are the parents of deceased Veerabhadra. The claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation on account of the death of their son Veerabhadra, who died in a road accident occurred on 01.03.2014.
3. During pendency of the claim petition, the respondent No.2-Insurance Company has filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, mainly on the ground that the Swift car bearing Reg.No.KA-22/N-8053 belonging to the first respondent was met with an accident on 01.03.2014 and said vehicle was left by the first respondent for repair in M/s Saketh Motors, Tumakuru, where employee of the said Automobiles used the said vehicle and caused the accident and therefore M/s Saketh Automobiles is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and not the second respondent. Hence the proposed respondent is proper and necessary party.
4. Learned Judge, while considering the said application, rejected the application mainly on the ground that on perusal of the petition averments, it is stated that the said vehicle was belonged to one Dananjaya and in the cause title it is stated that the first respondent is its owner. Admittedly the second respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle and contractual liability of the second respondent has to be adjudicated during the course of trial keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. Mere fact that, the second respondent has took such contention in the written statement and this Court has framed the issue with regard to non-joinder of necessary parties, it cannot be said that the proposed respondent is just and necessary party to the proceedings. Since the liability of the second respondent has to be adjudicated keeping in view of the terms and conditions of the said policy. Therefore applicant is not a necessary party to the proceedings. Therefore present writ petition is filed by the Insurance Company.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
6. Sri B.S.Umesh, learned counsel for the petitioner/Insurance Company contended that the impugned order passed by the MACT rejecting the application for impleadment is without any basis. Mere impleading the proposed applicant will in no way prejudice the case of the claimants to get the compensation against the Insurance Company or the owner in view of the above the learned Judge ought to have allowed the application. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.
7. Per contra, Sri K.Shantharaju, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants do not dispute the date of accident and the alleged vehicle was insured with the present petitioner / Insurance Company. Whether the compensation amount has to be paid by the insurance company or the owner, ultimately, the claimants are entitled for compensation. Therefore he sought to dismiss the writ petition.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed fact that the accident occurred on 01.03.2014 and the son of respondent Nos.1 and 2 Veerabhadra died who filed the claim petition claiming compensation. It is specific case of the owner of the offending vehicle that as on the date of the accident, insurance policy was in force. Mere impleading the proposed respondent i.e., Sri Suresh, Proprietor of M/s Saketh Motors, Tumakuru will not prejudice the case of the claimants. Ultimately the claimants are entitled for compensation in view of the accident occurred is not in dispute. Therefore learned Judge ought to have allowed the application for impleadment and merely by allowing the impleading application, the claim of the claimants cannot be deprived from the entitlement of compensation in accordance with law. In view of the above the impugned order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained.
9. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru in MVC No.837/2014 dated 22.03.2017 is quashed. IA filed by the petitioner / Insurance Company under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure before the trial Court is allowed. Learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Tumakuru shall proceed with the matter and pass appropriate judgment and award strictly in accordance with law.
SD/- JUDGE KMV*