Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 599 (KAR)

C. Anjaneyalu v. Obalamma

2012-07-30

N.K.PATIL, S.N.SATYANARAYANA

body2012
Judgment S.N. Satyanarayana, J. These four appeals are arising out of the common judgment dated 21.3.2007 passed on the file of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Davanagere. 2. Facts leading to these four appeals are similar and are as under: The appellant in MFA 8771/2007, Smt. Obalamma is claimant in three claim petitions filed in MVC 363, 364 and 365/2005 which are subsequently renumbered as MVC 198, 199 and 200/2006. The said claim petitions were filed by Smt. Obalamma for the death of her son Hanumanthappa, his wife Smt. Jyothi and their child Miss. Kavitha, in a motor accident which took place on 18.2.2002 invoking the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.CRU 5215, which earlier belonged to one Sri. C. Anjaneyalu, first respondent in all three claim petitions before the Tribunal. 3. The aforesaid claim petitions were filed by Smt. Obalamma on the ground that, in the accident dated 18.02.2002 which was caused near un-manned railway crossing while her son Hanumanthappa driving motor cycle No. CRU 5215 has resulted in loss of sole breadwinner of her family. Also on the ground that in the said accident, she has lost her daughter-in-law and grand daughter, minor child Kavitha. 4. The said claim petitions are filed against the original owner of the offending vehicle CRU 5215 viz. Anjaneyalu, and its alleged insurer, Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited. In the said proceedings, Union of India is also made as a party for the reason that, the accident has taken place near unamanned Railway level crossing involving the loco engine belonging to Indian Railways. 5. In the said proceedings, 1st respondent original owner denied liability for the reason that the vehicle involved in the accident was sold by him to one P. Annappa, brother of deceased Hanumanthappa, under delivery note dated 23.01.2000. He also stated that besides delivery challan all the documents of title were also delivered to Annappa. In turn Annappa had executed a document acknowledging receipt of original documents of title and also custody of vehicle. Thereafter had continued to use the said vehicle exercising right of ownership over the same. It was also contended that except for the formality of transferring the registration to the name of Annappa all other formality regarding transfer was complete. Alternatively, it was also contended that the claimant failed to establish her relationship with the deceased and also her rights to claim maintenance. 6. It was also contended that except for the formality of transferring the registration to the name of Annappa all other formality regarding transfer was complete. Alternatively, it was also contended that the claimant failed to establish her relationship with the deceased and also her rights to claim maintenance. 6. So far as Insurance Company is concerned, it has stated that the policy issued to the aforesaid vehicle expired on 30.1.2002. Thereafter it was neither renewed by the erstwhile owner Anjaneyalu or the subsequent purchaser P. Annappa. In view of that, the policy having expired as on the date of accident and also the same not being renewed the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 7. In the said proceedings, on behalf of claimant, she adduced evidence by producing police records, namely, FIR, 3 Inquest Mahazars and 3 P.M. Reports of all three deceased persons, IMV report and also the other relevant documents and tried to demonstrate that the claimant is entitled to receive compensation for the death of all these three persons. However, in the said proceeding, she did not produce any documents to show that the deceased Hanumanthappa is her son and also regarding the relationship of herself as mother-in-law of deceased Jyothi and grand mother of Kavitha. 8. In the written statement filed by contesting first respondent before the Tribunal, it was stated that, on 23.1.2000 itself, he had sold the vehicle involved in the accident i.e., CRU 5215 in favour of one P. Annappa under delivery note of even date which is produced as Ex.R1. Another letter of undertaking is also produced and marked by the contesting first respondent vide Annexure-R3 for getting the vehicle registered in his favour. Incidentally, it is also stated that the said P. Annappa is none other than the brother of the deceased Hanumanthappa in the said accident. When matter stood thus, there is an error on the part of the claimant in not arraying the said P. Annappa as party to the said proceedings after coming to know that as on date of accident the offending vehicle was already transferred to P. Annappa. 9. When matter stood thus, there is an error on the part of the claimant in not arraying the said P. Annappa as party to the said proceedings after coming to know that as on date of accident the offending vehicle was already transferred to P. Annappa. 9. On going through the judgment impugned and also the documents available on record, it is seen that, at least, after coming to know that the vehicle involved was sold in favour of P. Annappa, much before the date of accident, the claimant ought to have taken the precaution to implead the said P. Annappa and should have taken the responsibility of ascertaining the correctness or otherwise of fact of the vehicle being sold in his favour. Considering the fact that P. Annappa, was brother of P. Hanumanthappa, there appears to be some amount of dishonesty and motive of suppression on the part of the claimant Obalamma who is said to be the mother of said P. Annappa and P. Hanumanthappa in not taking any steps to implead P. Annappa even after coming to know that as on the date of accident he was the owner of the same. The conduct on her part to pursue the claim petition against the previous owner of the vehicle and trying to claim unjust enrich against the previous owner is deplorable in the face of the fact that, vehicle was purchased by none other than another son of her, which was very much within the knowledge of herself and her family members. 10. Be that as it may. When the pleadings is clear that the first respondent was not the owner as on that date, the Court below ought to have directed the claimant before the Tribunal to see that the alleged transferee of the said vehicle was also to be brought on record, though technically, the vehicle was not transferred to his name which is only a formality. This submission of the first respondent before the Tribunal who is the appellant in MFA Nos.8473, 8733 and 8474/2007 is further strengthened by the fact that the said P. Annappa got the said vehicle released from Railway Police claiming himself to be the owner after the accident in which aforesaid three death has taken place. 11. This clearly presuppose the existence of ownership of P. Annappa over the offending vehicle involved in the accident. 11. This clearly presuppose the existence of ownership of P. Annappa over the offending vehicle involved in the accident. When there is existence of sufficient proof regarding P. Annappa’s ownership over said vehicle, the Exs.R1 and 2, the tribunal could not have ignored to rely upon Exs.R1 & 2. In that view of the matter, this Court feel that the judgment impugned is not sustainable for non-joinder of necessary parties before the Tribunal. The contentions of first respondent before the Tribunal regarding the transfer of vehicle in favour of the brother of the deceased not being properly looked into has resulted in miscarriage of justice, which is required to be set right on reappreciation of the facts and evidence available on record. This can only be done by bringing the subsequent purchaser of vehicle P. Annappa on record. 12. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid observation, the judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal is set aside by allowing the appeals in MFA 8473, 8733 and 8474/2007 filed by the first respondent before the Tribunal. The claim petition is remanded back to the Tribunal. In the remanded claim petition, liberty is reserved to claimant to seek compensation from P. Annappa alone after getting him impleaded as respondent in the said proceedings. 13. In the remanded claim petition the erstwhile owner C. Anjaneyalu will not be necessary party. So also the insurance Company which has not issued the cover note. The Tribunal after impleading the subsequent purchaser P. Annappa as respondent, shall dismiss the petition as against the erstwhile owner C. Anjaneyalu and National Insurance Company Limited and shall proceed against P. Annappa only to determine the just and proper compensation the claimant is entitled to. 14. In view of these three appeals being allowed, the question of considering the enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MFA 8771/2007 does not arise for consideration and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The Statutory deposit if any made by the appellant while filing this appeal is ordered to be released in his favour.