Smt Vimala vs Sri M A Palany Swamy on 26 November, 2008

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Vimala vs Sri M A Palany Swamy on 26 November, 2008

Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar

1 wP1s649.o6
11'! ms area comer or xamcmuuca AT mumgmxm
DA'!'E9 '2':-us mg; 2522 pm or xovsmmm, 

BEFORE:

THE HOIPBLE ma. JUSTICE nsv. sH?LE§!> t?.A'§§tiMAi§"  

Writ Petitisrz No.15649 of'.§oq6'T(<3&r«-gatfg'  "   'V   j T

B TWEEH:

Sm' VIMALA
w/0 LATE A GANESH

AGED 35 YEARS, V " 

RJATNATTIBAIL Ho"u_s1«t, _   
EJPPINANGAIDY r<AsABA$iiLL:xG-«Ev, _  

PU'I"I'UF?'}'ALU"I{,  '   u  ..
D.K.D1s'rR1cT.'    _  -  * PETETIONER

[M] s. Srj,  Is{&'a%*a..Bha't:fA@z.'¥'  Adv.,]

1 SR: A41pALAm%"   " 

s/0 ATHEYANEN _ 
MAJOR-.._ . ._  
P?!-'1'0PRIEff'Q}? or SR: LAXMI TRANSPORT
..<;§/oMR.RAvz.,_ _
 . V-.L.;,AaE~1'1* *.Ij1J'AYAw'zs;1)A--1e
' - _, Ai*IDi'§.£<'A PRADESH.

2.  INSURANCE co LTD
1 DIVISIGNAI; omen,
"-4?.o.v_2~'ao.s..«+, 160, CHERRY ROM),
IST 91,009, SALEM 636 001,
RERBY yrs BRANCH MANAGER .

    DINESH
T  " S/O SOMAPPA SAPALYA
MAJOR, R,'A GANADA HOUSE,
-- ARKULA VILLAGE AN!) POST,
MANGALORE TALUK.

4 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSUFEANCE CO. LTD.,



3 WP1S649.06

had not impleaded the owner of the vehicie and its insurer

and this came in the way of fully effectuating   2

and for which purpose the tribunal made    

that such impleadment can  Mnf_:acive"'._ 

application, but the appiicatjon flied ltfor s;1:r.:.11t 

subsequently had come to be""'trejected    the
impugned order dated   1479
of 1997 on IA No.§ on  of MACT-IV,
Qakgmna    ., 

2. The  or Article 227 of the
Constitutiorrof "reason that an order of this

nature carznot-«ibéev 3713.'a:ftei'~ss1_11:r;;itect matter of an appeal or any

'Vother..'proeeed.eh1g":éi:1-5}---tile rejection has virtually left the

15etitio;1er"a§id"'h:e1'--.§:o~c1ajmants without any other remedy

_ -   to get,oi?ervthe'?..e;tiverse order the impact of which could be

 ..tI1at the"V1§fé.titioner and other co-claimants will be left

  reiief towards the loss of their dependency on

.  -~--.'{t:1_e'__§deceased person to the extent of 50% of the

  -..oompe13.sation amount determined by the Tribunal as their

enﬁtlement in the context of the accident.



5 WP1564906

respondent -- United India Insurance Company Limited is

represented by Sri. O Mahesh, learned counsel.

3. I have heard Sri. Pundikai lswara en.-gt, I counsel for the petitioner, Sri. O Mahesh, .. for the fourth respondent -~ f;It1di'a._' Company Limited and Sri. S' S;*ishaila"~ leaI*n'ed<_v L. for the second respondent -- 'Company Limited. A T V L A p

9. Submissi0n__of counsel for the fourth +--..:l'ns_urance company opposing the writ petitiionéiis fourth respondent may not _ have zgnitleh olajeetioin to the application for impleadment that cannot result autoznatimlly in an aimaIi'<i_«ii vA:'p.*éissed against the fourth respondent, V .pa1'tie't11a3§1jf;v "as the fourth respondent did not have any H 'A of putting forth its defence in the matter and limited extent the application can be allowed and " Writ mﬁtion ordered for such purpose. A /"

7' WP1S649.()6

10. Sri. Pundikai iswara Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner would however contend that impleatiing the owner of the ear and the insurer of the car in petitioners husband was Haveﬁmg and a formaiity; that the Uibunal has ' the owners of the two vehicles :1' the impleadment the executed one as against thet...r:$tvneit,.}.of and the insurer nazneiy United Eitiia Limited. the app};i._catj_,011 stgieeﬁon raised on behalf of the United Cempany and Sri. Mahesh, geotmsei "'t:.*~;*.;:3.t1ot be brushed aside as even by .9. award cannot be foisted on a party just as at respondent or party to the t"'.,.444_"Vpr(}<:eec%:';1':'A1'gs without an opportunity to defend its imerest "gut forth its case.

In this View of the matter, while this writ petition is '4 alkfrwed to the extent of setting aside the irnpugned order I';

t;/ 8 WPI5649.06 umier Axmexure-A and application for impleadment allowed, it is further clariﬁed that the matter will have to go back to the tribuna} for the purpose of possible Liability of the newly added reemndeeiis, the third respondent -» owner of M 3784 in which the pe1:it;ion_er's azxd the insurer of the vehjc1:.e:"~--rgf VeFiioVi'eV:4 ﬁ'arr1ely United India Insurance aﬂer e$cam1'ning the respective versions as may be avaiiable to thevse"«s;r:fespondeai;s put forth before the tribunal whiei:ee;e1eee%sr~ -.p_<::?'1:1r.}.i1:1:;i11g the parties to lead evidence on 'such aspect 0 -~ "

_ as are available in law and as "of other claimants can stiil be follewed, '»..,»en faces added respondents may be given 3:0 put forth their cases and on such premise to'rai~se such contentions as are available to them. 3d/9:

.Tudg3 M, u

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court