ANWAR MOHAMMED Vs. K. BAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the claimants in MVC No.288/2011, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udupi. The said petition was filed under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') against the respondent Nos.3 to 5, to award compensation on account of the untimely death of one Suhail Anwar, who sustained fatal injury in a road traffic accident, which occurred on 18.11.2010, involving vehicles bearing registration Nos.KA-20-MJ-786 and KA-01-FA-2157. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, grand parents of deceased Suhail Anwar, filed I.A.No.7, under Order I Rule 10(2) read with S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to permit them to come on record as supplemental petitioners. I.A. having been allowed on 11.03.2014, this writ petition was filed to quash the said order.

(2.) Sri H.Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned advocate, submitted that the 1st petitioner being the father and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 being the minor sister and minor brother respectively of the deceased, filed claim petition to award compensation and the applicants in I.A.No.7 being not Class-I legal heirs of the deceased, Tribunal has committed illegality in allowing I.A.No.7. Reliance was placed on the decision in DUNDAPPA MAHADEVAPPA BIDARANNAVAR Vs. NAGAPPA N. JANNANAVAR AND ANOTHER, 2009 1 KCCR 189. He submitted that impugned order being illegal, interference is called for.

(3.) Sri Shobhith N. Shetty, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, on the other hand by placing reliance on the decision in GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, AHMEDABAD Vs. RAMANBHAI PRABHATBHAI AND ANOTHER, 1987 AIR(SC) 1690made submissions in support of the impugned order.