NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. ANNAPOORNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents instituted MVC No.6546/2009 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru against the owner of a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA3 52/E-8196 and the petitioner, which insured the said vehicle, to award compensation of Rs. 35 Lakhs with interest, on the ground that the rider of the said motorcycle caused the accident on 23.03.2009 and due to the said actionable negligence, one Ravi @ Ravikumar, a pillion rider, fell down, sustained grievous injury and succumbed on 24.03.2009, while undergoing treatment in NIMHANS, Bengaluru. The respondents are the wife, child and mother respectively of the said deceased Ravi @ Ravikumar. The petitioner, which is respondent No.2, in MVC No.6546/2009, filed the written statement and contested the case. Issues having been raised and trial having commenced and when the case was at the stage of further evidence of the insured and insurer of the said vehicle, the petitioner filed I.A.No.3, on 08.03.2011, under Order VIII Rule 2 read with S.151 of CPC, to permit filing of 'Additional Written Statement', which was annexed thereto. I.A.No.3 having been seriously opposed by the claimants, on the ground that there is no provision to file additional written statement and the prayer in the application is totally impermissible, learned Member of the MACT, finding that no ground was made out to permit filing of the 'Additional Written Statement', rejected I.A.No.3, on 16.07.2011. Assailing the said order, this writ petition was filed.

(2.) Sri O.Mahesh, learned advocate, strenuously urged that the case being one of 'SELF FALL' of the deceased, projected as a case of road accident involving the insured vehicle, with the co-operation (connivance) of the insured and the concerned police, to foist illegal liability on the petitioner and the fraud having been discovered subsequent to the filing of the written statement and commencement of the trial, I.A.No.3 was filed to accept the 'Additional Written Statement', simultaneously presented. He submitted that since fraud has been played, the Tribunal ought to have allowed I.A. No.3, in order to ward off multiplicity of proceedings and to uphold the principles of fair play and natural justice. Learned Counsel contended that I.A.No.3 having been rejected on untenable ground, interference is called for.

(3.) Sri K.A. Chandrashekar, learned advocate, on the other hand submitted that I.A.No.3 itself being not maintainable and the same having been rightly rejected, impugned order does not call for interference. He supported the impugned order and argued that the Tribunal did not commit any error in rejecting I.A.No.3.