NARAYAN Vs. CHANNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 19.08.2013 in MVC No.184/2012 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hubballi.

(2.) Brieffacts of the case are that the petitioner is claimant and respondent No.1 is stated to be owner and respondent No.2 is insurer of the vehicle which involved in a road traffic accident on 24.10.2011 in which the petitioner suffered injuries. Initially, the petitioner filed claim petition showing the respondent No.1 as owner-cum-driver of the tractor. On service of summons, the respondents No.1 and 2 filed their objections to the main petition. Respondent No.1 owner categorically contended in his objection that he was not driving the vehicle tractor on the date of accident and he was only the owner. The Insurance Company has filed its objection denying the very happening of the accident as narrated in the claim petition. The petitioner examined himself as PW.1. In the crossexamination PW.1 stated that on the date of accident the respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle and he had informed to the police to that effect. Subsequent to his cross-examination the petitioner/claimant filed two applications one under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code to implead one Mahadevappa as driver and another application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code to amend the claim petition to the effect that the driver Mahadevappa was driving the vehicle and respondent No.1 was only the owner. It is stated in the affidavit that Mahadevappa is proper and necessary party since he was the driver of the tractor. The trial Court under impugned order rejected both the applications on the ground that having admitted in evidence that respondent No.1 was driving the tractor it is not open for the petitioner to contend subsequently that respondent No.1 is only owner and one Mahadevappa was driver of the tractor on the date of accident. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner/claimant is before this Court in this writ petition.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.