PUSHPAM Vs. NIRMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is directed against an order dated 10.2.1988 passed the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal declining to entertain I.A.No.1 of 1987 M.C.O.P.No.110 of 1985, on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. The I.A was one for bringing on record the petitioner as second petitioner in the M.C.O.P.No.110 of 1985 in view of the death of the first petitioner.

(2.) THE learned Subordinate Judge held: "Counter filed. Heard. Married sister is not a dependant to the injured who is since Hence petition is dismissed."

(3.) MR.Peppin Fernando, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the view taken the Court below is contrary to the view of this Court in Thailammal and others V.Mallayya Pillai and others, 1981 A.C.J. 185, as well as the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai and another, 1987A.C.J. 561. According to the learned counsel, the old view that dependants alone can come on record in the place of deceased or injured persons in motor accidents no longer good law in view of the above mentioned Supreme Court judgment. At any according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner will be entitled amount spent by the deceased towards hospital expenses and also the expenses connected therewith representing the estate of the deceased.