ANNAMMA PHILIP Vs. ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Smt. Annamma Philip, is the widow of one Sri T. V. George, who died on 25-5-1975 at the Medical College Hospital, Calicut, of injuries sustained by him at 5 p. m. on 22-5-1975 as a result of the accident involving stage carriage bus No. KLT 1065, known as Kissan Road Ways, owned and managed by the 2nd respondent at Perumkulam on the route Palamadu - Edakkara. The 1st respondent is the Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri (now Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode), the 3rd respondent the Kerala State Insurance Department, Trivandrum, the 4th respondent the New India Assurance Company, Calicut, and the 5th respondent the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident. M. A. C. No. 21 of 1975 on the file of the 1st respondent is an application for compensation filed by the petitioner under S.110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (the Act). Subsequently having come to know that a form for application for compensation has been prescribed under R.3 of the Kerala Motor Accidents claims Tribunals Rules, 1977. (the Tribunals Rules), which came into force on 25-7-1977 "to regularise the proceedings", the petitioner filed an application in the said form, a copy of which is Ext. P1, in effect in substitution of the application which had been filed as M A. C. No. 21 of 1975. The form prescribed, it may be noticed does not contain anything by way of cause title; the relevant particulars are all to be furnished against 28 items, the form itself being substantially in the nature of a questionnaire; the petitioner, however, in Ext. P1 added a cause title also, arraying herself as the petitioner and respondents 3 to 4 herein as respondents 1 to 3. At a later stage having realised that the driver of the vehicle (5th respondent herein) would be a necessary, or at least a proper party, the petitioner filed before the 1st respondent two applications, I.A. Nos 368 and 369 of 1978, the former being one for impleading the 5th respondent herein as the 4th respondent in M. A.C. No. 21 of 1975, and the latter for carrying out the amendment consequent to the impleading. Both these petitions were dismissed by the 1st respondent as per orders dated 6-6-1978, the true copies of which are Exts. P2 and P3 in the writ petition, holding that the impleading petition was barred by limitation. The petitioner seeks to have these orders quashed by the issue of a writ of certiorari, contending inter alia that they are vitiated by errors of law apparent on the face of the record and illegality.

(2.) Only respondents 3 and 5 herein are seen to have filed counter affidavits The counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent is rather formal in nature. In his counter affidavit, the 5th respondent has stated inter alia that there was no scope for interference with the orders impugned as the applications on which they were passed had been filed only nearly one year after the date on which the rules came into force, and three years after the occurrence of the accident. Sri V. R Venkatakrishnan, the counsel for respondents 2 and 5, during the course of his argument has also raised a technical ground that the applications were really misconceived, as the 1st respondent, in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Tribunals. Rules had no jurisdiction to bring on record new parties to the proceedings. He pointed out that the powers of a Civil Court to be exercised by the Tribunal are limited to those enumerated under R.21 of the Tribunals. Rules read with S.110C(2) of the Act. It is his contention that the enumerated powers conferred on the Tribunal do not take in a power to implead parties, and, therefore, a power similar to what is contained "in O.1, R.10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure which empowers the court at any stage of the proceedings to order the name of any person who ought to have been joined whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before court may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely settle all the questions in the suit, to be added cannot be exercised by the Tribunal. S.110C(2) of the Act and R.21 of the Rules are quoted below:

(3.) Sri P. C. Balakrishna Menon, the counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in a strict sense the impleading petition itself was not necessary inasmuch as the form prescribed by R.3 of the Rules does not provide for what is known as cause title, all the relevant facts being required to be found in answers given in an itemised manner in the form Item 16 relates to the owner of the vehicle, item 17 to the Insurers and item 18 to the driver of the vehicle. As against item 18 the name and address of the 5th respondent had already been furnished by the petitioner in Ext. P1 application.