Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K.S. Mudagal, Anil B. Katti , JJ.
T.R. Srinivasa - Appellant
Versus
K.N. Madhu & Ors. - Respondents
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 3921 of 2014 (MV-D)
Decided On : 02-02-2023
Nagaraja S. H.S. Lingaraj, Advocate
A petition cannot be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties; instead, the plaintiff should be called upon to implead such parties before dismissal.
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Claim - Section 166(1), Proviso to Section 166(1) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 166(1) and its proviso, emphasizing that in case of death due to a motor accident, all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased can file a claim petition. If all legal representatives are not impleaded as claimants, the claimant should implead them as respondents. The court also highlighted that a petition cannot be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties; instead, the plaintiff should be called upon to implead such parties before dismissal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a compensation claim for the death of his mother in a road accident. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition citing failure to prove the occurrence of the accident and non-joinder of necessary parties.Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal's dismissal was erroneous and set aside the award, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.Issues:
Failure to prove occurrence of accident, non-joinder of necessary parties.Ratio Decidendi:
The court emphasized that a petition cannot be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties and highlighted the provisions under Section 166(1) and its proviso.Final Decision:
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned award was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.JUDGMENT
K.S. Mudagal, J. - Heard.
2. "Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim petition of appellant for compensation due to the death of his mother?"
3. The appellant is the son of one Lakshmamma. It is the case of appellant that on 17.06.2011, at 11.00 p.m., when Lakshmamma was travelling in Tata Indica Car KA.01/9248 to go to Dharmasthala, lorry bearing No.KA.53/7367 dashed the said Tata India car near Siddapur Village in Kunigal Taluk and caused instantaneous death of Lakshmamma.
4. The appellant filed MVC No.908/2011 before the III Additional District Judge and IV MACT, Tumkur, claiming that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry No.KA.53/7367 and he being the dependent of Lakshmamma, suffered damages due to her death. At the time of accident, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were registered owner and Insurer of lorry No. KA.53/7367. The appellant claimed compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- from both the respondents.
5. Respondent No.1 did not contest the petition. Respondent No.2-Insurer alone contested the petition denying the occurrence of accident, rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of lorry and death of Lakshmamma. Respondent No.2 also disputed the liability to pay compensation.
6. In support of the claim of appellant, he was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2, its Manager was examined as RW.1 and Insurance Policy was marked at Ex.R.1.
7. The Tribunal, on hearing both sides, by the impugned award dismissed the claim petition on the following reasons;
i) That appellant has failed to prove that Lakshmamma was travelling in Tata Indica Car No.KA.01/9248;
ii) That appellant has failed to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry No.KA.53/7367; and
iii) That appellant has not impleaded his other siblings in the claim petition. Therefore, the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
8. Sri Nagaraja S., learned counsel for appellant submits that impugned order is self-contradictory and contrary to documentary and oral evidence on record. He further submits that in dismissing the petition for non-joinder of necessary parties, the Tribunal acted contrary to Section 166(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act').
9. Sri H S Lingaraj, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurer seeks to justify the impugned award on the ground that appellant ought to have impleaded all his siblings to the petition. He further submits that except the self-serving statement of PW.1, there is no oral evidence to prove the accident or Lakshmamma travelling as inmate of the car.
Reg. Occurrence of accident and death of Lakshmamma:
10. To substantiate his claim that Lakshmamma was travelling in car No.KA.01/9248 and lorry No.KA.53/7367 hit the said car, appellant relied on his ocular evidence and Exs.P.1 to P.7. No doubt, the appellant/PW.1 is not an eyewitness to the incident. However, Ex.P1 the FIR in Crime No.95/2011 of Amruthur Police Station shows that soon after the accident, complaint was registered against the driver of lorry No.KA.53/7367.
11. The complaint shows that Police visited the hospital and recorded the statement of Ashwini, one of the inmates of the car, the injured person. She has stated that herself, her grandmother Lakshmamma and other family members were travelling to Dharmasthala in Car No.KA.01/9248. She also stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry and Lakshmamma died at the spot.
12. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the driver of lorry for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 of IPC. In the charge sheet, it is stated that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry No.KA.53/7367 by its driver causing death of Lakshmamma and injuries to CWs.1 to 4. In light of such evidence, Tribunal's finding that occurrence of accident due to rash and negligent driving of lorry No.KA.53/7367 and Lakshmamma travell
