SURENDRAN Vs. SHAJAHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -claimant, an injured in an accident, impugn Exhibit P3 order dated 25.11.2014, of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram [for short "the Tribunal"], which refused to review its order dated 08.08.2014, directing the applicant to take steps for impleadment of the driver of the alleged offending vehicle. The Tribunal found that the driver is a necessary party in the proceedings based on Rule 377 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 [for brevity "Kerala Rules"] as also a decision of this Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation v. Velu [ : 2014 ACJ 2178].

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is absolutely no requirement for impleadment of the driver, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Machindranath Kernath Kasar v. D.S. Mylarappa [ : 2008 ACJ 1964]. The learned counsel, with reference to the facts of the case, would vehemently urge that the owner, who is vicariously liable, is impleaded before the Tribunal and he has chosen to remain ex parte. It is also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle, before the Magistrate Court wherein offence under the Indian Penal Code was pending trial, had pleaded guilty and, hence, the negligence stands admitted.

(3.) THE short issue raised is that, there is no necessity to implead the driver as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Machindranath Kernath Kasar (supra). The facts of the aforesaid case would reveal that, a bus of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation [for brevity "KSRTC"] and a truck were involved in a collision and the appellant before the Supreme Court was the driver of the KSRTC bus. The said driver too suffered injuries in the accident and filed a claim petition, which was rejected for reason of the negligence found on him. The passengers travelling in the KSRTC bus, also alleged negligence on its driver. Neither the driver of the bus nor the driver of the truck were impleaded in either of the claims, i.e., filed by the passengers or that by the driver of the KSRTC bus. While the claim petition of the passengers of the KSRTC bus was allowed, finding negligence on the driver of the bus, the bus driver's claim petition stood dismissed for reason of the accident having occasioned due to his negligence.