USHA RAMESHAN Vs. S. UDAYA CHANDRAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals by the claimants are directed against the impugned common judgment and award dated 8th March 2012 passed in MVC Nos. 9137/2009 & 9136/2009 and on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Bengaluru, (SCCH -18) (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for short).

(2.) BY its judgment and award, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant -injured in MVC No. 9137/2009 filed under Section 166 of MV Act and awarded a sum of Rs. 93,800/ - with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization as against the claim made by the appellant and claim petition filed by the LRs of the deceased/claimant in MVC No. 9136/2009 has been dismissed. Being aggrieved by the impugned common Judgment and Award passed by the Jurisdictional Tribunal, the appellants felt necessitated to present these two appeals. In brief, the facts of the case are:

(3.) THE submission of Sri. Pilla Reddy, for D. Manmohan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, at the outset is that, impugned common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remitted back to the Jurisdictional Tribunal to re -consider the matter afresh reserving liberty to the appellants to implead the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident and the appellants may be permitted to lead additional oral and documentary evidence. To substantiate his contention, he placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Machindranath Kernath Kasar v. D.S. Mylarappa & Others ( : AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2545) wherein at para Nos. 23 and 24, wherein it is held that driver of the vehicle involved in the accident is a necessary party and has to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings and without impleading the driver, the Tribunal cannot take decision for claim made by the claimants. He further placed reliance on Rule 235 of The Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and submitted that if one more opportunity is afforded to the claimants they would be in a better position to establish their claim and all the contentions urged in the memorandum of appeal may be left open.