IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ MFA NO.2572 OF 2014 (MV) BETWEEN THE MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., “TBR TOWERS”, 1ST CROSS, NEW MISSION ROAD, ADJACENT TO JAIN COLLEGE AND BANGALORE STOCK EXCHANGE, BANGALORE.
BY ITS MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, 4TH FLOOR, GARDEN HOUSE NO.1/2, 59TH “C” CROSS, 4TH M-BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI. MAHADEVA, S/O. DUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. SOORAKHALI VILLAGE, KIRUGAVALU HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK-571 430. MANDYA DISTRICT.
2. SRI. BETTAPPA, S/O. SRI. RAMAKRISHNAPPA, MAJOR IN AGE, R/O. DODDADAIRY VILLAGE, CHIKKANAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 009.
... RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENTS ARE SERVED) THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 18.02.2014 PASSED IN MVC NO.44/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MACT, MALAVALLI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.60,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL DEPOSIT.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the judgment and award dated 18.02.2014 passed in MVC No.44/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Malavalli, wherein a total compensation of Rs.60,000/- was awarded with interest at 6% per annum to the injured-claimant, who sustained injuries in a road traffic accident, which occurred on 14.06.2009.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company. Though the respondents are served, they are unrepresented.
3. The case of the claimant was that on 14.06.2009 at about 2.40 p.m., while he was crossing the Maddur-Kollegala Main Road, in front of Government Hospital, Malavalli, the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-41-K-590 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him, on account of which, he fell down and sustained injuries such as fracture of right leg ankle joint and abrasion over the right arm shoulder and left arm shoulder and tenderness all over the body. He claimed a total compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs from the respondents.
4. To establish his claim, he examined himself as PW-1 and he got marked Exs.P-1 to P-5. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was led and no documents were marked.
5. The Tribunal after considering the evidence and material on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.60,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the rider of the motor cycle had no valid driving license as on the date of accident and in that connection, he filed I.A.Nos.7 and 8 under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure before the Tribunal, to reopen the case and to lead the respondent’s side evidence. However, the Tribunal proceeded to pass the judgment, thereby rejecting the said applications. It is his contention that consideration of the said IAs are very much necessary for the just decision of the case and therefore, he seeks to allow the appeal. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy reported in (2011) 11 SCC 275.
7. The accident in question and the claimant sustaining injuries in the said accident is not disputed as the said issue has been answered in favour of the claimant. The grievance of the appellant herein is that the Tribunal rejected I.A.No.7 to advance the case from 18.02.2014 to 15.02.2014 and I.A.No.8 to reopen the case to lead respondent’s side evidence.
8. It is seen that on 18.10.2012, there was representation on behalf of Respondent No.2 before the tribunal and was cross examined. Further, on 06.02.2014, claimants’ side evidence was closed and it was posted for respondent’s evidence. Further on 13.02.2014, since there was no representation for Respondent No.2, his side evidence was closed and the matter was posted for arguments. It is not in dispute that the arguments on both sides were heard and the matter was posted for judgment and at that point of time, the aforesaid applications were filed by the appellants herein.
9. The Tribunal after placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rabiya Bi Kassim M. vs. The Country Wide Consumer Financial Services Limited reported in ILR 2004 KAR 2215, wherein it is held that ‘once the matter has been finally heard and posted for judgment, nothing to be required to be done by the Court except to pronounce the judgment’ and accordingly, proceeded to pass the judgment .
10. In the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that :
“Power under Section 151 can be exercised to deal with any particular procedural aspect which is not provided expressly or impliedly in CPC, if ends of justice so warrant and to prevent abuse of process of court – Court in appropriate cases can exercise its discretion to permit reopening of evidence and/or recalling of witnesses for further examination/cross-
examination after evidence led by the parties is concluded and arguments have commenced or even when arguments have concluded and case has been reserved for judgment, as there is no provision in this regard in CPC after deletion of Order 18 Rule 17-A”.
11. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also observed in the aforesaid decision that the power under Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. It is also to be noted that in the aforesaid judgment, the applications were filed before the conclusion of the arguments.
12. In so far as the present case is concerned, after the entire arguments are over, the applications were filed by the appellant herein to reopen the case and to lead the respondent’s side evidence.
13. The Tribunal after considering the evidence and material on record, has awarded a just and reasonable compensation to the claimant. The compensation awarded by the tribunal can not be said to be on a higher side. The appellant was given sufficient opportunity to contest the claim.
14. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that this is not a fit case wherein the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal could be interfered with and accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit be transmitted to the Tribunal.
snc Sd/- JUDGE