IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the limitations on reopening a case and altering a judgment and award under Order-VIII, Rule-1 of CPC, highlighting the need for adherence to legal procedures and the finality of judgments.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed under Section-173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’ for brevity) by the appellant–insurance company, calling in question the judgment and award dated 11.11.2011, passed in M.V.C.No.454/2007, on the file of the Principal District Judge And Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chickmagalur, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for brevity) challenging the liability fastened.

Brief facts:

2. On 24.06.2007 at about 9.30 a.m., while the claimant by riding his motor bike bearing registration No.KA-18/L.4477 in a moderate speed, was proceeding near Sangameshwarapete School, the first respondent being the driver of the Maruthi Car bearing registration KA-15/M-1390, came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the Motor bike of the claimant. As a result, the claimant fell down from the bike and sustained injuries.

3. Hence, a claim petition was filed by the claimant under Section-166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered in the accident. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part, and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,27,001/-along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

4. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on earlier occasion, the Tribunal has passed judgment and award on 11.11.2010, determining compensation of Rs.1,27,001/-fastening the liability on respondent No.2 owner of the Maruthi Car No.KA-15/M-1390, by exonerating the insurance company on the ground that respondent No.2 while driving the car and caused the accident did not possess a Driving License and also for the reason that there was no insurance policy. Therefore, the Tribunal by the judgment dated 11.11.2010 fixed the liability on the owner of the maruthi car to pay compensation.

6. But subsequently, the owner has filed an application under Order-VIII, Rule-1 of CPC for reopening the case and after reopening the case on the said application, further evidence was recorded and then the earlier judgment was modified and once again redetermined the compensation and liability was shifted on the insurance company to pay compensation.

7. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error by appreciating the evidence just on the I.A. filed under CPC and reopening the matter. Hence, reversed the finding and order by wrongly fixing the liability on the insurance company. Therefore, submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on 11.11.2011 is legally unjustified. Therefore, prays to set-aside the same and requested to confirm the earlier judgment and award dated 11.11.2010.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 justified the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and prays to dismiss the appeal.

9. In the present case, the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record has passed the judgment and award on 11.11.2010 determining the compensation of Rs.1,27,001/-by fastening the liability on the owner of the Maruthi Car No.KA-15/M.1390. The reason assigned by the Tribunal for fastening the liability on the owner of the Maruthi Car is that the owner who has driven the car did not have the Driving License to drive the car and also the insurance policy was not produced. Therefore, on these two grounds fastened the liability on the owner of the car.

10. Subsequently, after delivery of the judgment on 11.11.2010, the owner has filed an application under Order-VIII, Rule-1 of CPC, along with two documents and requested the Tribunal to reopen the case for modification of the judgment and award and the Tribunal has allowed the said application and reopened the case and modified the earlier judgment by passing another judgment dated 11.11.2011 redetermining the compensati