IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOs.3626 OF 2018 & 4961 of 2018 & 5513 OF 2018 (GM-AC) BETWEEN:
1. SMT SHASHIKALA W/O VENKATARAMANA H D, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O HONAGODU VILLAGE, IDUVANI POST, BARANGI HOBLI, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577401.
2. VENKATARAMANA H D S/O DEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O HONAGODU VILLAGE, IDUVANI POST, BARANGI HOBLI, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577401.
3. PRASANNA KUMAR H V S/O VENKATARAMANA H D, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O HONAGODU VILLAGE, IDUVANI POST, BARANGI HOBLI, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577401.
(By Mr. SOURUP MUKHOPADYA ADV. FOR Mr. HARISH KUMAR M S, ADV.) AND:
1. AVINASH S/O JAYANTH HARGI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, … PETITIONERS SOFTWARE ENGINEER, BEHIND DY SP OFFICE, JOSPEH NAGAR, SAGAR CITY, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577401.
2. SHIVAMALLAIAH S/O MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO.203, 7TH CROSS, 11TH MAIN, T.K.LAYOUT, MYSORE, BADGE NO.2002, DRIVER KSRTC VOLVO BUS, NO.KA 09-F-4917 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC BANGALORE, OWNER KSRTC VOLVO BUS, NO.KA 09-F-4917.
(By Mr. N S BHAT ADV. FOR Mr. R B DESHPANDE ADV. FOR R1 2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED SMT. SHWETHA ANAND ADV. FOR R3 (ABSENT)) - - -
… RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-D THE ORDER DATED:11-04-2017 ON I.A. NO.ii IN M.V.C NO.815/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND AMACT, SAGAR AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Sourup Mukhopadya for Mr.Harish Kumar M.S., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.N.S.Bhat for Mr.R.B.Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
2. The writ petitions are admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same re heard finally.
3. In these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 11.04.2017 passed by the claims Tribunal, by which application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for impleading of the parents and brother of the deceased has been rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the Tribunal has found that the proposed applicants were related to the deceased and therefore, the application ought to have been allowed. It is further submitted that the question whether or not they are dependants should have dealt with at an appropriate stage of the proceedings. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order passed by the Tribunal and has submitted that the impleading applicants were not dependants on the deceased and therefore, the application has been rightly rejected.
5. I have considered the submissions made on both the sides. Admittedly, the impleading applicants are related to the deceased being the parents and the brother of the deceased. Therefore, at this stage of impleadment, in any case, they were proper parties to the lis, their entitlement to receive the amount of compensation would depend on the question whether or not they were dependants on the deceased. The aforesaid question has to be determined after the parties had adduced the evidence and the same could not have been taken into consideration at the stage of deciding the application for impleading. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal therefore suffers from the error apparent on the face of the record. It is accordingly, quashed. The application for impleadment is allowed. The Tribunal is directed to decide the question of entitlement of the impleading applicants for payment of compensation after parties have adduced evidence.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS