AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimants is directed against, the impugned Judgment and Award dated 17/06/2006 passed in MVC No. 3632/2004 by the IX Additional Judge Court of Small Causes and Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-7, Bangalore (SCCH-7) (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal for short).
The Tribunal by its Judgment and Award has dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants u/s 166 of M.V. Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants have presented this appeal.
The ''occurrence of the accident on 26.12.22003 at about 11.30 a.m., and resultant death of the deceased Sri. Chennappa are not in dispute. On account of the death of the deceased, the claimants being his legal representatives have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal u/s 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation against the respondents, without impleading the driver, owner and Insurer of the Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No. KA. 40. H.7574. Therefore, the said petition filed by the claimants has been dismissed by the Tribunal holding that the claimants are not entitled to claim any compensation against R1 and 2, the owner and '' insurer of the goods auto bearing No. KA. 05.C.7212. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award, the claimants have presented this appeal.
We have heard the learned counsel for the claimants and learned counsel for third respondent.
After careful perusal of the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal, it emerges that, the claimants inadvertently due to negligence on the part of the counsel who represented them, have filed the petition without impleading the driver, owner and Insurer of the motor vehicle bearing No. KA. 40. H.7574. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have given an opportunity to the claimants to file necessary application for impleading the driver, owner and insurer of the Motor Cycle No. KA. 40. H.7574 instead of dismissing the petition on hyper technical ground it is significant to note that, the claimants are redressing their grievance on account of the untimely death of the deceased Chennappa and therefore, they are entitled for just and reasonable compensation. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the Tribunal is not justified in dismissing the claim petition in view of the negligence on the part of the counsel who represented the claimants before the Tribunal. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of this case and to safeguard the interest of both the parties, it would suffice for this Court to issue appropriate directions to the parties.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part.
The impugned Judgment and Award dated 17/06/2006 passed in MVC No. 3632/2004 by the IX Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-7, Bangalore (SCCH-7), is hereby set aside.
Matter stands remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh, with a direction to dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.giving top priority since the matter is pending adjudication from 2003.
The appellants herein are permitted to file necessary application before the Tribunal for impleading, the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle bearing No. KA. 40. H.7574 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Tribunal is directed to receive the same and pass appropriate orders after issuing notice to the driver, owner and insurer of the motor vehicle bearing No. KA. 40. H.7574 and then proceed further and conclude the matter after affording reasonable opportunity to the parties personally or through their counsel, in compliance with the above directions issued by this Court.
With the above observations, this appeal stands disposed of.