AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Indrakala, J.—Though the appeal is listed for hearing on Interlocutory Application, the same is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for appellant as well as the respondents. This above appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 11.12.2003 passed in MVC No. 12/1997 on the file of the XIX Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-17)(for short ''the Tribunal''), Bangalore, contending that as on the date of the alleged accident i.e., on 28.10.1996, the vehicle which was involved in the accident i.e., the vehicle bearing registration No. KA-09-951 was not covered with the valid policy of insurance and the vehicle was insured subsequent to the alleged accident i.e., on 30.10.1996 and as such, the appellant is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle viz.;, respondent No. 4 herein.
As notice sent to the respondent No. 4 is returned with postal shara ''refused'', service of notice on him is held sufficient vide order dated 8.3.2013.
Neither the claimant nor the other respondents have chosen to file any appeal against the impugned judgment and award. It is only the insurer of the said vehicle, who has preferred the appeal contending that the liability fastened on it is not proper.
The brief facts leading to the filing of the claim petition are that on 28.10.1996 when the wife of the claimant/respondent No. 1 herein was proceeding along with the claimant in the car bearing registration No. CAX 2040 on Bangalore Mysore Road at about 3.45 p.m. near Bachanahalli, the lorry bearing registration No. KA 09-591 which was coming from the opposite direction was being driven by its driver in a rash manner, went and dashed against the said car and caused the accident; in the said accident, wife of the claimant suffered grievous injuries and later she succumbed to the same in the hospital and it is specifically contended by the claimant that the accident occurred on account of the rash/negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles.
In the statement of objections filed by respondent No. 3 therein/owner of the vehicle/lorry bearing registration No. KA-09-951 in paragraph 9, it is specifically pleaded that the vehicle was insured with the 4th respondent/appellant herein and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident, while respondent No. 4/appellant herein pleaded that the particulars furnished in the petition with regard to the existence of the policy is insufficient and has denied such coverage of policy. However, the appellant herein, who was respondent No. 4 before the Tribunal has not chosen to adduce any evidence with regard to such denial of issuance of policy as on the date of the accident.
In view of such specific plea on the part of the owner of the vehicle and allowing of Misc. Civil. 16782/2009 and permitting the appellant to produce the document sought in the application, it is proper that the matter be remanded to the Tribunal to give finding with regard to the document now permitted to be produced by giving opportunity to the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, the above appeal is entitled to be allowed. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 11.12.2003 passed in MVC No. 12/1997 on the file of the XIX Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, MACT (SCCH-17), Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the jurisdictional Tribunal for the limited purpose of giving opportunity to respondent No. 3 therein/owner of the vehicle/lorry bearing registration No. KA-09-591 to adduce evidence with) regard to the coverage of the insurance as on the date of the said accident and also to the appellant herein to adduce his evidence, if any, in proof of the document now permitted to be produced.
As the case is of the year 1997, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible within the outer limit of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and records.
Office is directed to send the records forthwith along with the documents now permitted to be produced.
Amount in deposit, if any, is ordered to be refunded to the appellant.