IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H T NARENDRA PRASAD W.P.No. 3145 OF 2014 (GM-AC) BETWEEN:
SRI SURENDRA B S AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O BORASHETTY R/A D.NO. 118 BANNANGADI, PANDUPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT- 571 434 (BY SRI.KRISHNA KUMAR S R, ADV.) AND:
1. PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O PAPASHETTY 2. NAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS W/O PUTTASWAMY BOTH R/A HOSAKOTE VILLAGE CHIKKALAHNA CHERRA HOBLI NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT- 571 301 3. ANAND K S AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O SOMASHETTY …PETITIONER R/A NO. 1448/1, K.R.SAGAR S.R.PATNA, MANDYA DISTRICT- 571 438 4. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED PRESTIGE SHOPPING COMPLEX ARCADE RAMASWAMY CIRCLE, MYSORE- 570 005 REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.P.NATARAJU FOR R1 & R2 SMT.MANJULA N TEJASWI FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-D DATED: 23.11.2013 PASSED IN REV. PETITION NO. 7/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & MACT, MYSORE DISMISSING THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.11.2013 passed by the III Additional District Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysuru in Review Petition No.7/2013 whereby the Tribunal has rejected the Review Petition filed by the petitioner herein.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are that the petitioner was the owner of the goods auto bearing registration No. KA-11-8069. The petitioner sold and conveyed the said vehicle in favour of Sri Nanjunda s/o. Muniyappa on 06.03.2010. Pursuant to the said sale deed, the name of the said purchaser Sri Nanjunda has been recorded in the owner’s column of the RC Register ‘B’ extract produced as Annexure-‘A’. From 06.03.2010 onwards, the petitioner ceases to be the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. KA-11- 8069. On 29.6.2010, the said vehicle met with an accident resulting in the death of the daughter of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - claimants before the MVC. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a claim petition in MVC No.47/2011 claiming the compensation of Rs.8,22,000/- on account of death of their daughter Kum. Renuka due to the injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident on 29.6.2010. The Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 30.9.2011 granted a compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. holding the petitioner herein and also the driver of the vehicle as jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation.
3. Further case of the petitioner is that as on the date of accident, petitioner was not the owner of the goods auto vehicle bearing registration No.KA-11-8069 therefore, he filed the Review Petition before the Tribunal in Review Petition No.7/2013. Review Petition was dismissed by order dated 23.11.2013. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the accident has occured on 29.6.2010. As on that date, petitioner was not the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-11-8069. He has sold that vehicle to one Nanjunda s/o Muniyappa on 06.3.2010. The same is evident from Annexure-‘A’ - ‘B’ Register extract issued by Transport Department. During the pendency of the case before the Tribunal, he was unable to produce the document to establish that he was not the owner of the vehicle as on the date of the accident. He filed the Review Petition seeking the review of the order. The Tribunal without considering the document Annexure-‘A’, has dismissed the Review Petition. Hence, he sought for allowing the Writ Petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the petitioner was represented by his counsel before the Tribunal in MVC No.47/2011 and he has filed objections. Till the disposal of the case, he has not made any effort to produce Annexure-A. Therefore, at this stage, he should not be permitted to produce the document to urge that he is not the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. KA-11-8069 and not liable to pay compensation. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Perused the papers.
7. On going through the material on record, it is clear that petitioner was not the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. KA-11-8069. He had sold the vehicle to Nanjunda s/o Muniyappa on 06.3.2010 and the same is evident from Annexure-‘A’ – ‘B’ Register extract. As on the date of the accident, the vehicle was owned by Nanjunda s/o Muniyappa. During the pendency of MVC No.47/2011 before the Tribunal, petitioner herein was unable to produce the same. Subsequently, he filed a Review Petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC which reads as under:
“1. Application for review of judgment- (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.”
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.”
On reading Order XLVII Rule 1(c) it is clear that for any other sufficient reason if he makes out a case before the Tribunal saying that he was unable to produce the documents, the Review Petition is maintainable. The Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect and has rejected the Review Petition. In view of the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, the order passed by the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, Mysuru in Review Petition No.7/2013 on 23.11.2013 is unsustainable.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER 1. The writ petition is disposed of.
2. The order dated 23.11.2013 passed by the III Additional District Judge & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysuru in Review Petition No.7/2013 is quashed.
3. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to reconsider the Review Petition No.7/2013.
4. Since the matter is old, parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 28.01.2019. No further notice need be issued to the parties.
5. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the Review Petition within four weeks from the date of presence of the parties.
BRN Sd/- JUDGE