- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1767 MFA No. 201497 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201497 OF 2021 (MV-I) BETWEEN: MOHD. SAJID S/O MOHD. IBRAHIM, AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O H.NO. A-8-350, MULTANI COLONY, OUTSIDE SHAH GUNJ, BIDAR, DIST. BIDAR-585 401. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.M. GHATE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. TUKKAREDDY S/O RAMREDDY NALBAL, AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O VILLAGE HANAKUNI, TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR-585 330. 2. YOUSUF S/O BABUKHAN, AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O VILLAGE YENKURA, TQ. BHALKI, DIST. BIDAR-585 328. 3. SURYAKANTH S/O MANIKAPPA BANDHU, AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O VILLAGE YENKURA, TQ. BHALKI, DIST. BIDAR-585 328. 4. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF MYSORE, Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1767 MFA No. 201497 of 2021 NOW MERGED WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE, BIDAR-585 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADV. FOR R1; R2 TO R4 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN MVC NO. 621/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT HUMNABAD AND THEREBY PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 22.05.2020. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. The short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant herein was given an opportunity to defend his case before the Tribunal. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1767 MFA No. 201497 of 2021 3. The appellant herein was arrayed as respondent No.4 before the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Humnabad (hereinafter referred as Tribunal, for convenience) in MVC No.621/2015, by virtue of an order passed on application U/o 1 Rule 10 of CPC dated 29.06.2019. The para 4, 5 and 6 of the said order of impleadment reads as below; “4. The petitioner has filed the claim petition seeking compensation for injuries sustained by him in a road accident. It is his case that, the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing Reg.No.KA-38/T-035. The petition was filed against three respondents showing them as driver, owner and the present R.C. holder. The respondent No.3 bank filed their objections stating that after the tractor was seized by them, they had sold it in a public auction to one Mohd Sajeed who had offered the highest bid for the purchase of vehicle. Therefore, he is now the owner and a necessary party to this case. On such ground being raised the present application came to be filed to implead Mohd. Sajeed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1767 MFA No. 201497 of 2021 5. The main objection of the proposed respondent No.4 is that, though he had offered the highest bid in the auction, he was unable to purchase the vehicle and now agreed to sell it to the respondent No.1. Accordingly, the vehicle is already delivered to respondent No.1. Therefore, the same was intimated to the Bank and R.T.O. authorities. Thus, he is not a necessary party to this case. From the materials on records the proposed respondent No.4 having purchased the vehicle in the public auction held by the bank authorities has not been disputed. Except, producing an endorsement issued by the R.T.O. for having received intimation sale of vehicle to respondent No.1, no records are furnished to show that now the vehicle is standing in the name of respondent No.1 only. 6. The alleged agreement is said to have taken place on 10-12-2014 and the endorsement is issued by the R.T.O. on 07- 03-2015. The accident is shown to have taken place on 05-06-2015. In the absence of any materials to show in whose name the vehicle was standing on the date of accident, the presence of proposed respondent No.4 is proper in this case. If during the trial it is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1767 MFA No. 201497 of 2021 proved that he was not all the R.C. holder on the date of accident the claim petition can be dismissed against him. Therefore, for proper adjudication of the issues involved in this case proposed respondent No.4 is a proper and necessary party. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: //ORDER// The I.A.No.IV filed by the petitioner U/O 1 R 10 of C.P.C. is allowed. The proposed respondent is to be impleaded as respondent No.4 in this case. The petition be amended accordingly. Call on for amendment and amended petition by 10-07-201.” 4. Thereafter, the Tribunal noted that on 10.07.2019 an amended petition came to be filed and the matter was a slated for objections of the impleaded respondent No.4/appellant herein on 31.07.2019. On 31.07.2019, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant herein. Consequently the Tribunal proceeded - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1767 MFA No. 201497 of 2021 with the matter and ultimately it disposed off the petition by the impugned judgment dated 22.05.2020. 5. Now the appellant who was the impleaded respondent No.4 before the Tribunal, has approached this Court in appeal, contending that he was not served with the copy of the petition and other documents and the amendment was not made in the original petition even though an amended petition was filed. It is contended had the appeal papers were furnished to the appellant herein had the petition papers were furnished to the appellant herein and opportunity was accorded to him to defend his case, he would have put forth his case before the Tribunal. He submits that on merits also he has a favourable case and as such the procedure adopted by the Tribunal is incorrect. Apart from that, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant herein though had participated in the auction conducted by the State Bank of Mysore, he had parted with the position of the vehicle to one Yusuf Khan i.e. respondent No.1 before the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1767 MFA No. 201497 of 2021 tribunal, but however RC was not changed. Therefore, he contends that fastening the liability to pay the compensation out of the accident that occurred involving the vehicle on the appellant herein is incorrect and the same needs to be set aside. 6. The perusal of the Tribunal records would reveal that though the tribunal notices that amended petition was filed on the very next date of allowing the application under order 1 rule 10 of CPC, the amendment that was brought to the original petition was not noted. Such amendment was also not carried out to the original petition. It is worth to note that nothing prevented the appellant herein to bring it to the notice of the Tribunal on 10.07.2019 that he was not served with the copies of the petition papers. No such submission was made either on 31.07.2019 or any other subsequent dates when the matter was posted. This shows that after disposal of the petition, technical grounds are raised in this appeal that - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1767 MFA No. 201497 of 2021 right of audience was not appropriately provided to the appellant. 7. Though, the Court shall shun such conduct of raising technical grounds based on the faults committed before the Tribunal by non-appearance, the matter needs to be heard on merits. The courts prefer the meritorious disposal than on the technical grounds. When the appellant herein contends that he was not given an opportunity and he was not served with the copy of the petition papers, it appears that there is a folly on the part of the Tribunal also. When the amended petition was filed before the Tribunal, the claimant should have also taken care to serve the copy of the same on the counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 before the Tribunal. 8. Be that as it may, the appellant herein is taking shelter under the technical grounds which cannot be disputed. The appellant herein do not appear before the Tribunal till disposal of the petition and raises his little finger stating that he was not served with the copy of the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1767 MFA No. 201497 of 2021 petition. Therefore, the conduct of the appellant herein is also not clean and sacrosanct. Under these circumstances, it would be proper to set aside the impugned judgment remand the matter to the Tribunal with liberty to the appellant herein to adduce evidence in whatever manner he wants and to direct the Tribunal to decide the matter in accordance with law. However, such remand would be with conditions. Hence the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed, subject to condition that the appellant deposits cost of Rs.25,000/- before the Tribunal on the first date of appearance. The Tribunal shall pay the same to the claimant. Payment of the costs by appellant shall will be pre-condition to put forth his case before the Tribunal. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal. on 07.04.2025 without further notice by the Tribunal. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1767 MFA No. 201497 of 2021 On such appearance on 07.04.2025, the Tribunal shall cause the service of the copies of the amended petition upon the appellant, afford an opportunity of filing the objections to the petition and at any rate such objections/written statement shall not be beyond 15 days from the date of service of the petition copies. Thereafter, the tribunal shall dispose of the petition after strictly following the provisions contained under Order 17 of the CPC (not more than 3 opportunities to the party to adduce any evidence in the matter) within an outer limit of 3 months. Amount in deposit before this Court is ordered to be refunded to the appellant herein. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48 CT: AK