S RAMESH Vs. V SRINIVASA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has impugned the order dated 22.4.2014 in Misc.No.258/2012 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (for short, 'learned Small Causes Court'). The learned Small Causes Court by the impugned order has dismissed the appellant's petition filed under Order IX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The genesis for the present proceeding is that the claimant/appellant suffered injuries in a road accident on 20.12.2006 while he was driving his motorcycle. The appellant presented a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, asserting that the accident was caused by the driver of the goods matador vehicle owned by the respondent No.1 and insured with the respondent No.2. The claim petition was allowed by the judgment and award dated 20.09.2008 awarding compensation of Rs.3,03,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. However, insofar as obligation to pay the amount awarded, the learned MACT concluded that the claimant/appellant had failed to establish that the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company and therefore, the insurance company would not be liable. The respondent No. 1 the owner of the offending vehicle, who had not participated in the proceedings, filed proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Misc.No.144/2010 after service of notice of the execution proceedings initiated by the appellant in Execution Case No.1080/2009.

(3.) The respondent No.1 contended in Misc.No.144/2010 that the offending vehicle, which was subject matter of a Hire Purchase Agreement, was indeed insured with the respondent No.2 for the period between 1.10.2006 and 30.09.2007 as the premium for such insurance covered was paid to M/s. TATA Motors Financial Limited, who held Hire Purchase Agreement. However, there was an error in mentioning the engine and chassis number in the policy.