Karnataka High Court
Sri B Satyanarayan Nagishetty vs Sri Mallangouda @ Mallikarjuna on 17 June, 2019
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S.G. Pandit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17 T H DAY OF JUNE, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETI TION NO.107174/2017 (GM-AC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.B.SA TYANARAYAN NAGISHETTY,
AGE: 61 YEARS , OCC: BUSINESS ,
R/O CTO COLONY VIJAYWADA,
DIST: KRISHNA, A NDHRA PRADESH-520 010.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VENKA TESH M.KHARVI, ADV.)
AND:
SRI.MALLANAGOUDA @ MALLIKARJU NA
S/O SHIVANGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 27 YEARS , OCC: NIL,
R/O KANNINAYAKANAKOPPA, KALAGHATAGI,
DHARWAD DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.C.S.NAGASHETTI, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITU TION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE TH E ORDER DATED 14.06.2017 PASSED
BY HON'BLE 1 S T ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.)
AND CJM, DHARWAD, IN I.A.NO.MVC706/2015 UNDER
ORDER 14 RULE 5 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AS PER
ANNEXURE-F .
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FO LLOWING :
2
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 14.06.2017 passed on I.A. in MVC No.706/2015 on the file of the 1 s t Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Dharwad.
2. The respondent Mallanagouda filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation. The petitioner is respondent in the said claim petition. The respondent filed his objections to the claim petition. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed following two issues.
i) Whe ther the pe titioner proves the alleged accident and in the accident pe titio ner sus tained injur ies?3
ii) Whe ther pe titio ner is entitle d f or co mpens ation? If so, ho w much and f rom who m?
3. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed application under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC seeking framing of additional issue, which is as follows:
"Whe ther the respondent proves that, the vehicle be ar ing No.AP16/H-3045 was f alsely implicated by pe titioner in the alleged incident occurred on 19.05.2015 at abou t 6.00 p. m. at Kalaghatg i ro ad ne ar Tejash wi Nagar Br idge, Dhar wad? "
4. In the affidavit in support of the application, filed under Order XIV Rule 5, the petitioner herein stated that, car bearing No.AP16/H-3045 never met with the accident. Hence, framing of issue in that regard is very much necessary. The Tribunal considering the contentions of the parties under impugned order dated 14.06.2017 rejected the application filed 4 by the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that framing of additional issue as sought in the application is very much necessary for deciding the dispute as to whether the car bearing No.AP16/H-3045 was involved in the accident or not. He has taken a specific contention in the objection statement that the said car is not involved in the accident and the said issue with regard to the same ought to have been framed by the Tribunal.
7. On hearing the learned counsel and on perusal of the writ papers, I am of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal is neither perverse nor erroneous so as to call for 5 interference. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has rightly framed issue, as to whether the petitioner proves the alleged accident. It is for the petitioner who has filed claim petition to prove the accident and accidental injuries suffered by him. Therefore, issue No.1 framed by the Tribunal would be sufficient to cover the additional issue sought for by the petitioner. No ground is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected. In view of rejection of the writ petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBS/-