Karnataka High Court
J M Ramachandra vs S Ravikumar on 23 April, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2011 AAC 383 (KAR), 2011 (1) AIR KANT HCR 82, (2010) 4 TAC 539, (2010) 5 KANT LJ 173, (2010) 4 CIVILCOURTC 127, (2011) 2 CURCC 276
Author: K.Govindarajulu
Bench: K.Govindarajulu
1
IN THE HEGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA. BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2330 DAY OF APRIL 2010 [_
BEFORE ' M
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.GOVINDAR1§JU'itLT::¢_Vj:. .
M.F.A I\Io.3389/2006 [MV) A
BETWEEN:
J.M.RA1\/EACHANDRA.
S/O MUNIYAPPA.
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS.
JAKKEGOWDANADODD1, '
ACHALU POST, SATHANIQR E--iOi_5LI','z j n
BANGALORE RURAL DISTR§'C'£'.._f__ 'A *_..ApI9ELLANT
{BY SR1:"'R}{:rAAI§IDR§é;SIII:I<»AR.f FOR"
M /S,V'LAwYVER.S-~V1\_I3T. '.A,I)vS .--) -
AND:
V 1. S.RAVII{IIIvIAR,_' " "
S;/__O I;A'i"E_ SHIVANNA.
'V " ~ HOSUR VILLAGE, BIDADDI
' .=HOBLI4. RAMA--NAOARAM TALUK.
A _ 13ANG;A'LORI§;- DISTRICT.
_ 2. K';<SRE}EE'JIA'§?ASAI,U.
AGEDABOUT 34 YEARS,
I 13/0 RAIVIASUBBA REDDY.
C3/«--O KRISHNAPPA,
" "JOGARADODDE.
"EBEDADI HOBLE,
___:RAMANAGARAM TALUK,
BANGALORE DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS /
5%.
2 [BY SR1. H.K.BASAVARAJ, ADV. FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.10.2005 PASSED IN MVC 3310,4129/1999 ON THE F1131.'-.OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) 8: MEMBER._pA13DL_. MACT, RAMANAGARAM. DISMISSING THE CLAIMV.P_1E;'1":fi*£.ONg. FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR 1f~j1NAL I'iEA.1§iNG'::'1'1~iIL=_r 'v DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE:v'FOLLOw.;NO:. . JUDG/M«'.LNL;7s' "'1 A Ciaimant in MVC No.4290g/Tp:'i9991.hasti1is appeal challenging V oft' Dthe1D ciaim application.
Pa.rties'V'vii'1].p:bevépfesferried according to their status referred tO1'inp0t1*1e1CO1u1_rVt bleioxv. Per:ised___.t.he records. Case of the claimant 1999 appellant along with his friends On the road and were go to fiabbaialnma 0V.Ustava On Sathanur W Channapatna road, while they hear the Vaddaradoddi village, the lorry was driven its driver in a very high speed and has dashed against the appellant. For pain. suffering and agony appellant seeks for a compensation of
4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have fi1ed'v:"'0bj'eijtie1§s_-- Contend that as on the date of owner is Krishnappa, for Vehiclev'bearing.V»NQ.V:KA 8498. The present owner of Ne.KA~ 05-8498 is not iaw. It is also contended that, has sold the sale agreement for Rs.3..T59.'(§()fL;)* /v1'§.;,:::A' v:':'1...i¥V)V_fl'9C)Vtheeated of vehicle to Canara, has agreed to pay the ioan. loan on 23.06.1998. S0, .---.p_vthe_»"~§'traf};si'e1' 'n0te_ ____ Form No.29 is intimated to the 'ceVneem_ed.;'«five._the vehicle is delivered on 04.01.1997, respondent 'j_is*1'iot liable to pay the said sum. ;f\ft:er framing of the issues PW1 is examined ":9."a;n.d""«_.g0t marked the documents as EXP} to P8. Aiiteordingly, defence Krishnappa is necessary party. a/
-41
6. In the light of the above, the point that arise for consideration is under:
"Whether the reasoning of the learned trial Judge in dismissing the application, without recording the ll regard to sale of vehielel respondent no.1 is proper?"
7. Ansu-'e1'i11g point i?.o~;:?'p_'~ra'is_ed Court below, learned trial respect of a positive defenr'j<2--:1Q3e-i.ng§.ta1§e_iji, peti'_tione"r has not added Krishnappa 'vv*1%'1(")'V.?fi'a,s'lpurchased the vehicle in question. This part thel .re'3;s"on'iing; based upon pleading. p_Unle's§s p1€:zid'i;'igg___i_svs1.1bstantiai,ed with evidence, the
--._be given. So. the approach of the learned lkludge in giving the finding Without _ lVrecording"evidence of the respondents in considering the opinilon of the Court is bad in law.
~SeeoI1diy. the Court could have exercised power under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and got impleaded the owner Krishnappa who is said to have purChase(i.._"th_e Vehicle. Having not done so, Court approach of the Court be1c)wMi1"1 it '* application is not apt. So, the foii'Qwi:;1g..order'ie"paéjSed"::;_*A
i) Appeal is allowed.
1:) Order of ECTrriai"*-a'rjiet:urt in MVC iii} ._Learrse=djV"Tudge to decide the case i ".e§c{:'§'rfig{;'=1e<;-. with Eaw Eudqe