NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. BASAVVA HANUMATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent -Basawa presented claim petition in MVC No. 255 of 2003 before the Court of District judge and MACT No. I, Bagalkot claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained by her in the accident occurred on 26-1-2003. The second respondent-Basavaraj was driving the motor cycle bearing No. KA-23/q 7729 and first respondent-Basawa was pillion rider of the said motor cycle. On presentation of the claim petition, the MACT Issued notice to the petitioner which was received by the insurance company on 24-6-2003. As per the notice, the petitioner was required to appear before the court on 30-6-2003. From 30-6-2003, the case was adjourned to 29-9-2003. On which date, the petitioner -Insurance company filed statement of objections along with an application under Section 151 of CPC requesting the Claims Tribunal to receive the written statement on the ground that the statement filed by the petitioner-Insurance company was beyond 90 days. The Tribunal relying upon the decision of this Court reported in ilr 2003 Kant 3097 : (AIR 2003 Kant 345) (Prasanna Parvathamba Vaidyanatheswara trust represented by its President, Mandya v. M. S. Radhkrishna Dixit) rejected the application filed by the petitioner-Insurance company and therefore, the written statement filed by the petitioner-Company was not accepted. Being aggrieved by the order dated 29-9-2003, the present petition is filed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the decision relied upon by the Tribunal in rejecting the application of the petitioner, is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. According to him, the provision of Order VIII, Rule 1 of CPC, is not applicable to the case to be dealt with by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal in view of Rule 254 of the karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereinafter called as 'the Rules' ). Therefore, he requested this Court to set aside the order dated 29-9-2003 passed by the MACT, bagalkot in MVC No. 255 of 2003.

(3.) THOUGH the respondents are served, they are unrepresented. Therefore, in this background, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on merits and having heard the matter, this court has to consider whether the provision of Order VIII, Rule 1 of CPC can be made applicable to the proceedings arising out of motor accident cases before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and whether the decision reported in ILR (2003) 3 Kant ,3097 : (AIR 2003 Kant 345) (Prasanna Parvathamba Vaidyanatheswara trust represented by its President, Mandya v. M. S. Radhakrishna Dixit) of decision of the Division Bench of this Court, report in ILR (2004) Kant 1399 : (AIR 2004 Kant 246) (A. Sathyapal v. Smt. Yasmin Banu ansari can be made applicable to the facts of this case.