IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.55354 OF 2017 (GM-AC) BETWEEN:
SMT PUNGODI W/O LATE N P SUGUMAR @ SHIVAKUMAR R/O NANDANAGANANDALA VILLAGE GANGAPPATTU POST THIRUVANNAMALAI(T) AND (D) TAMILNADU STATE.
(By Mr. RAJASHEKHAR .K ADV.,) AND:
1. SRI M ARUNACHALAM S/O MUNISWAMYNAID MAJOR R/O SHIVADURGA SULEBAILU 1ST CROSS, URGADURU POST SHIVAMOGA.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE MALLAPPA COMPLEX IST FLOOR, B H ROAD SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS (By Mr. K SURYANARAYANA RAO ADV., FOR R2(ABSENT)) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TOQUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.4.932017 IN M.V.C. NO.1128/2013 PASSED BY THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAGAR VIDE ANNEX-A & ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Rajashekhar K., learned counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondents. Heard.
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order passed by the motor Vehicles Accident Tribunal, by which the petition filed by the petitioner under Section XXVI Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’ for short) for examination of the Doctor has been rejected.
4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petition briefly stated are that according to the petitioner her husband sustained injuries in an accident, as a result of which he expired. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s husband was treated in the State of Tamil Nadu and therefore, it is necessary to examine the Doctors who treated the husband of the petitioner in the hospital situate in the State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code was filed. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the examination of the Doctors who treated the husband of the petitioner was necessary in order to enable her to prove that the husband of the petitioner died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the road accident. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by Tribunal.
6. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. As per the version of the petitioner, her husband was treated in the State of Tamil Nadu and therefore, examination of the Doctors who treated him in Tamil Nadu is necessary for a fair and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the claim petition. The Tribunal, while passing an impugned order has taken a hyper technical view. The impugned order is therefore, quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code is allowed. The Tribunal is directed to proceed with the proceedings expeditiously in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS