- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15209 WP No. 30011 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 30011 OF 2019 (GM-AC) BETWEEN: SRI. SUMAN S/O. REVANASIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS OCC: DRIVER R/AT BASAVANALU VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 001. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. AISHWARYA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GURURAJ R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. JABIULLA S/O. HANEEF SAB AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS MEHABOOB NAGAR DAVANAGERE - 577 001. 2. SRI. N.B. VEDAMURTHY S/O. KURUVATTEPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NAGARAKATTI VILLAGE DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.C. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. ZAMEER PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.07.2019 PASSED ON IA NO.VII IN MVC NO.884/2017 ON Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15209 WP No. 30011 of 2019 THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT AT DAVANAGERE VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for following relief's: "Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble court be pleased to: i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 09.07.2019 passed on IA No.VII in MVC No.884/2017 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Davanagere vide ANNEXURE H; ii) Issue any other writ or order or direction that deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Respondent No.1 had filed the proceedings under Motor Vehicles Accident Act seeking for compensation in MVC No.884 of 2017 before the Senior Civil Judge, III Court, Davangere. In the said matter, the petitioner had filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 seeking permission to insert amendment to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15209 WP No. 30011 of 2019 the claim petition alleging that on account of the injuries which had been suffered in the road traffic accident, one of the kidney having been damaged, had to be removed by the doctor and as such, the compensation was to be claimed on that account also. The said application having been allowed, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial having commenced, thereafter the application under Order VI Rule 17 having been filed, there is no due diligence which has been placed on record by the claimant, inasmuch as no reasons have been assigned as to why despite due diligence the claimant could not have sought for relief in respect of the alleged removing of kidney. On that ground, she submits an application under Order VI Rule 17 ought to have been considered in relation to the proviso to Rule 17 of Order 16 and the application ought to have been dismissed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15209 WP No. 30011 of 2019 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Accident Act is a beneficial legislation which has been enacted to enable victims of accidents to seek for and obtain compensation in the earliest possible manner. 6. Though the general rules of CPC and Evidence Act are applicable to the said proceedings, the proceedings are held before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and as such the requirement of CPC and Evidence act would not apply in their full rigor to such proceedings. The claim made by way of the amendment is that one of the kidney have been damaged and the same had to be removed while treatment. This aspect even if not having made mention of in the claim petition, it would be for the claimant to establish the same to avail the benefit of compensation on that account. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15209 WP No. 30011 of 2019 7. In that regard necessary evidence being required to be led, the petitioner would always have a right to cross examine and lead evidence contra the evidence led by the claimant. That apart the petitioner could also get the claimant medically examined to ascertain if at all the kidney has been removed. Of course, the doctor who has removed the kidney would also have to be examined to ascertain the nature and circumstances in which the kidney has been removed and on that basis, the MACT would have to ascertain the compensation liable to be paid. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the MACT. 8. The petition stands dismissed with the aforesaid observations. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE *bgn/- CT:VS/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50