IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.6584 OF 2016(GM-AC) BETWEEN:
M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, BADSHAH BUILDING OPPOSITE CLOCK TOWER, MAIN ROAD, VIRAJPET KODAGU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA – 571 218.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER. (By Mr.B.S.UMESH, ADV.) AND:
1. SIDDALINGAMMA W/O LATE SANNAPUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 2. REVANNA S/O LATE SANNAPUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS 3. RENUKAIAH S/O LATE SANNAPUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF MUDIGERE SHETTYPALYA YEDIYUR HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK – 572 4. V.CHETHAN MANDANNA S/O V.A.MANDANNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.165 1ST CROSS, 1ST BLOCK KORAMANGALA … PETITIONER BANGALORE – 560 034.
… RESPONDENTS (By Mr.MUSHTAQ AHMED ADV. FOR R1-R3 (ABSENT)) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN MVC NO.192 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT KUNIGAL THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.B.S.Umesh, learned counsel for the petitioner. None for respondent Heard on the question of admission.
2. In this petition under Article 226 Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 21.12.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tumkur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) by which application preferred by the petitioner seeking deletion of paragraph 6 of the statement of objection has been rejected.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of the petition briefly stated are that the deceased met with an accident on 26.05.2009. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 thereon filed a petition claiming compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on 10.02.2009. The petitioner filed statement of objections on 18.06.2010. The petitioner thereafter on 05.03.2012 filed additional statement of objections, in which it was pleaded that the vehicle has been falsely implicated in the accident in question. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Order VI Rule 16(b) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) for striking out paragraph 6 from the initial statement of objection. The Tribunal by impugned order dated 21.12.2014 has rejected the aforesaid application.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order passed by the Tribunal is illegal and the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the petitioner was not taking new stand except clarifying the stand already taken. It was further submitted that in order to deny the negligence on the part of the petitioner, it was necessary for the petitioner seek deletion of plea of contributory negligence.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed statement of objections on 18.06.2010. Thereafter, the additional statement of objections were filed on 05.03.2012. On perusal of the application as well as the affidavit filed under Order VI Rule 16(b) of the Code, it is evident that no cogent reasons had been assigned by the petitioner for not making the application prior in point of time. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that by deletion of paragraph 6 of the statement of objection, the petitioner is seeking to withdraw the application, which was initially made and wants to withdraw the plea of contributory negligence. The Tribunal has therefore rejected the application filed by the petitioner Under Order VI Rule 16(b) of the Code. The impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity or any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise it is well settled in law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to correct all errors of a judgment of a Court acting within its limitation. It can be exercised where the orders is passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. [See: ‘JAI SINGH AND OTHERS VS. M.C.D. AND OTHERS’, (2010) 9 SCC 385, ‘SHALINI SHYAM SHETTY VS.
RAJENDRA SHANKAR PATIL’, (2010) 8 SCC 329 and ‘RADHE SHYAM AND ANOTHER VS. CHABBI NATH AND OTHERS’, (2015) 5 SCC 423].
In the result, I do not find any merit in the petition. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SS