This appeal is by the claimants for setting aside the judgment and award dated 16.02.2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Doddaballapura, in MVC No.8/2013.

2. To avoid confusions and overlapping, the parties are hereinafter referred with reference to their respective status before the Tribunal.

3. One Manu was said to be travelling on a motorcycle bearing No.KA 43 K 5566 as a pillion rider on 15.12.2011 and Shivakumar G.K was the rider of the said motorcycle. When the motorcycle reached a place near Muthur Shivappa’s land, a two wheeler TVS Moped bearing reg. No.TN-29-AA-279 suddenly rushed and turned it without passing any signal because of which, the rider of the TVS Moped and the motorcycle dashed against each other. In the process, the rider and the pillion rider suffered injuries, but Manu, who was the pillion rider of motorcycle suffered serious injuries and died on his way to the Hospital. The parents of the deceased Manu filed claim petition seeking compensation. Respondent No.1-K.H.Ravi, owner of the vehicle is said to be the brother-in-law of Manu, apparently, has not contested the case. Respondent No.2- National Insurance Company contended that it did not dispute the policy, but asserts that its liability would be subject to fulfillment of the terms by the owner as required under Section 134(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act and also contends that the petition is bad for non-joinder.

4. Section 134(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act is as under:

“Sec.134(c) –Duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person-

When any person is injured or any property of a third party is damaged, as a result of an accident in which a motor vehicle is involved, the driver of the vehicle or other person in charge of the vehicle shall-

(a) xxx

(b) xxx

(c) give the following information in writing to the insurer, who has insured their certificates of insurance, about the occurrence of the accident, namely-

(i) insurance policy number and period of its validity;

(ii) date, time and place of accident;

(iii) particulars of the persons insured or killed in the accident;

(iv) name of the driver and the particulars of his driving license.”

5. The Tribunal framed issues relating to the accident, injuries of Manu, who succumbed to them. The petitioner/appellant was examined as PW1, Exs.P.1 to P.10 were marked, which includes copy of the FIR, complaint etc., and the respondents neither examined any witness nor filed documents on their behalf. The Tribunal has failed to consider why the Insurance Company in a span of more than 5 years has not initiated the action against the person whom it claims as guilty.

6. It appears that the Tribunal applied much emphasis on the contention of the Insurance that the rider of the Motor cycle never was negligent or rash in riding, but entire negligence of TVS Moped. And does not assign the legally acceptable reasons. The respondent No.2 Insurance Company therein admitted the policy but contends the liability would arise only when the holder of the policy complied with terms of driving of the offending vehicle fits into the terms.

7. Whenever a point of law has to be considered for its applicability to a given set of facts, the courts are there to ensure that principles of natural justice are properly respected.

8. But in the case on hand, the Tribunal does not appear to have extended fair and full opportunities to the parties to know the extent of nexus between criminal case and the claim petition as to the parties who are arrayed as the accused persons in the complaint, FIR and final report as well. It does make a mention effect of investigation and filing of final report connecting the criminal case registered in Crime.No.143/2011 for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 304(A) of IPC and final report of the accident related to this claim petition. Regard being had to the fact final report need not be accepted in principle. However that aspect becomes relevant when the matter is under judicial scrutiny of a gi