Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 757 (KAR)

B. K. Pushpalatha v. Gopala

2008-12-08

N.K.PATIL

body2008
ORDER N.K. Patil, J. Petitioners in this petition have sought for calling the records in M.V.C.No. 1183/ 2001 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srirangapatna and to set-aside the Annexure - A order dated 1 February 2005, passed in M.V.C.No. 1183/2001 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srirangapatna. 2. The petitioners here in claim that, they are the legal representatives of the deceased late Sri. Manje Gowda who had filed the M.V.C No. 1183/2001 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srirangapatna (Claims Tribunal for short) on 30 November 2001 seeking compensation on the ground that, on 6 July 2001 at about 3:30 P.M near Bisilumaramma Temple at Kallahalli village, while he was about to cross the road, the first respondent - the driver of the Hero Honda motorcycle bearing KA-11/J-8851.came in a rash and negligent manner to endanger human life and dashed against him and caused accident. In the said accident, deceased Manje Gowda sustained grievance injuries. The said claim petition filed by the deceased Manje Gowda had come up for consideration before the Claims Tribunal on 1st February 2005 and the Claims Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after considering the material available on record, has allowed the petition and held that, respondent-2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of a sum of Rs.02,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till it deposits in the Tribunal. 3. Be that as it may, this is an unfortunate case, where, during the pendency of the claim petition filed by deceased Manje Gowda, the said late Manje Gowda has died on 26th June 2004 leaving behind these petitioners as his legal representatives. But, unfortunately, neither the legal representatives nor the Counsel appearing for deceased Manje Gowda have filed any application reporting the death of the deceased Manje Gowda before passing the judgment and award by the Claims Tribunal on 1st February 2005. When these petitioners came to know about the pendency of the case, they have filed the application under Order 22, Rule 3 of the CPC to come on record as the legal representatives of the deceased Manje Gowda. In the said application, they have prayed that, they are entitled to receive the compensation amount as per the order passed by the Claims Tribunal, referred above. In the said application, they have prayed that, they are entitled to receive the compensation amount as per the order passed by the Claims Tribunal, referred above. The said application filed by these petitioners had come up for consideration before the Claims Tribunal on 12 July 2006. The Claims Tribunal, has proceeded to recall the earlier judgment and order dated 1 February 2005, but, consequently, dismissed the petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as abated and further directed the amount that was deposited by the insurance Company to be refunded to it by issuing cheque and to obtain receipt for the same and endorse the same in the order sheet and put up before the Claims Tribunal for signature.Being aggrieved by the order impugned passed by the learned Judge of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srirangapatna, dated 12 July 2006, petitioners herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition, seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra. 3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 4. After careful perusal of the material available on record, it emerges that, the Claims Tribunal, had in fact, allowed the claim petition filed by deceased Manje Gowda and passed the judgment and award in M.V.C.No. 1183/2001 on 1st February 2005. awarding compensation of a sum of RS. 2,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till it is deposited with the Tribunal. But, due to ignorance and lack of communication between the legal representatives of the deceased Manje Gowda and the petitioners herein and their Counsel, who represented the deceased Manje Gowda before the Tribunal and also these petitioners being residents of a remote village in K.R. Pet Taluk, Mandya District not well acquainted with the legal implications, immediately after coming to know of the pendency of the claim petition filed and awarding of compensation by the Claims Tribunal, have rushed to the Counsel and requested the Counsel to file necessary application to come on record and seek proper direction regarding the entitlement of compensation amount. Accordingly, they have filed the application dated 3 February 2006 under Order 22 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking permission to come on record as legal representatives of the deceased Manje Gowda. Accordingly, they have filed the application dated 3 February 2006 under Order 22 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, seeking permission to come on record as legal representatives of the deceased Manje Gowda. It is significant to not that, again, here also, the Counsel who represented the deceased Manje Gowda, instead of filing necessary three applications, such as (i) Delay in filing the LR application, (ii) For setting aside the abatement, and (iii) To bring the legal representatives of the deceased Manje Gowda on record, has erred in filing only one application seeking permission to come on record. This aspect of the matter has not been looked into nor considered by the Claims Tribunal and mechanically proceeded contrary to the material on record and the well settled law laid down by the Full bench of this Court. If a party, due to lack of knowledge or ignorance or not being well acquainted with the procedural formalities approaches the Court after engaging the services of a Counsel, it is duty cast on the Courts, to ask the concerned Advocate on record to take necessary steps in the matter for bringing the legal representatives on record by filing necessary applications.Instead of doing so, the Claims Tribunal, by taking hyper technical grounds, has proceeded and recalled its earlier judgment and order dated 1 February 2005 on the ground that, the said judgment and award passed is against a dead person and consequently, dismissed the petition as abated, without application of mind and without taking into consideration the relevant material available on file and the entitlement of the compensation amount by the legal representatives of the deceased claimant Sri. Manje Gowda. It was the bounden duty of the Claims Tribunal to have gone into root cause of the matter, the ground reality and the fact theat due to the lapses on the part of the Counselor on the part of the litigants/applicants/legal representatives of deceased persons, the interest of the legal representatives should not be affected. Instead of deciding the matter on merits of the case and in strict compliance of the Motor Vehicles Act and the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, the Claims Tribunal has proceeded to recall the order and dismiss the petition as abated. The said judgment and order passed by the Claims Tribunal is not justifiable, for the reasons aforesaid. 5. The said judgment and order passed by the Claims Tribunal is not justifiable, for the reasons aforesaid. 5. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, to meet the ends of justice, and to safeguard the interest of these petitioners and respondents 2 and 3, it would suffice for this Court to issue appropriate direction as follows. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated supra, the writ petition filed by petitioners is disposed of as follows: 1] Petitioners herein are permitted to file necessary four applications under the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, such as, (i) Delay in bringing the legal representatives of the deceased Sri. Manje Gowda on record; (ii) For setting aside the abatement; (iii) For bringing the legal representatives of deceased on record; and (iv) For recalling the order dated 12 July 2006 dismissing the claim petition as abated, on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), and Member, Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srirangapatna, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; iii] The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), and Member, Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srirangapatna, is hereby directed to receive the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and dispose of the same, after affording opportunity to petitioners and respondents 2 and 3, as expeditiously as possible, treating the same on top priority having regard to the fact that, the matter has been pending adjudication regarding the entitlement of compensation by these petitioners in respect of the compensation awarded during 2005 and the accident that took place during 2001.