- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10273 MFA No. 5115 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5115 OF 2018 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. VIRUPAKSHA S/O DODDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDENT OF IGANE THIMMANAHALLY, SALAGAME HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT – 573 201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHARADAMBA A.R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. U.R. VEERAPPA RUDREGOWDA, MAJOR IN AGE UGANE VILLAGE, SALAGAME HOBLI HASSAN TALUK & DIST.-573 201. 2. THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INS. CO LTD., VENKATESHWARA BUILDING, P.B.NO.108, B.M. ROAD, HASSAN – 573 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.O.MAHESH ADVOCATE FOR R2 (THROUGH V/C); R1- NOTICE SERVED) THIS MFA FILED U/O. 43 RULE 1(C) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/11/2017, PASSED IN MISC. NO.84/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/O. IX RULE 9 OF CPC. Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10273 MFA No. 5115 of 2018 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Though the matter is listed for admission, but with consent of both the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the order dated 27.11.2017 passed in Misc.No.84/2015 by the Additional District Judge, Hassan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short). 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 4. It is the case of the appellant/claimant that he has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident and accordingly filed a claim petition in MVC No.990/2009 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hassan. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10273 MFA No. 5115 of 2018 5. When the said petition was pending for consideration, it was referred to Lok Adalat and submitted that in the Lok Adalat, the matter was settled between the claimant and Insurance Company for Rs.40,000/-. Both the claimant and his Advocate singed the joint memo in Lok Adalat and the claimant and his Advocate were under impression that the representative of the Insurance Company has signed on the joint memo and were also under impression that the claim was settled and disposed of, but the representative of the Insurance Company has not signed on the joint memo. Therefore, the Lok Adalat had referred the case back to the Tribunal, but the Tribunal has dismissed the said claim petition for default because the claimant and his Advocate were not present before the Tribunal after the case was referred back. Knowing this fact, the claimant has filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC in Misc.Petition No.84/2015 before the Additional District Judge, Hassan, but the Trial Court has dismissed the said petition on the reason that the claimant has not came to the Trial Court with clean hands. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10273 MFA No. 5115 of 2018 6. Considering the submissions by both the sides, the matter was once again referred to Lok Adalat, according to the claimant, the matter was settled for Rs.40,000/- in the Lok Adalat and both the claimant and his Advocate signed on the joint memo. They believed that the petition was settled and disposed of in the Lok Adalat. When this being the fact, but as per the submission made by counsel for the appellant that since the representative of the Insurance Company has not signed on the joint memo, therefore, the Lok Adalat has sent back the file to the Tribunal, but the claimant and his Advocate were under impression that the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat and they did not know that Lok Adalat once again send back the file to the Tribunal for consideration. 7. Under these circumstances, the claimant did not know that the petition was pending before the Tribunal, after referred by the Lok Adalat. Therefore, under these circumstances, the claim petition came to be dismissed by default. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10273 MFA No. 5115 of 2018 8. Considering all these factors above stated there is some delay occurred for the reasons above discussed. The Tribunal could have considered the petition magnanimously considering all these eventualities, but straightway dismissed the petition by observing that there is delay of 9 months in filing the Misc. Petition for recalling the order of dismissal of claim petition by default. 9. Therefore, considering the above factors, the order of dismissal of claim petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the claim petition in MVC No.990/2009 as per law on merits. 10. However, the claimant is not entitled interest from the date of dismissal of the claim petition for default till today i.e., 11.03.2025. 11. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10273 MFA No. 5115 of 2018 ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The order dated 27.11.2017 passed inMisc.No.84/2015 by the Additional District Judge, Hassan, is hereby set aside. iii. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of MVC No.990/2009as per law. iv. The claimant is not entitled interest for the period from the date of dismissal of petition for default till today i.e., 11.03.2025. v. Both the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 08.04.2025. vi. The Tribunal shall dispose of the claim petition in MVC No.990/2009 within a period of six months from 08.04.2025. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34