N MARICHAMY Vs. K SUBBURAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.R.P.Nos. 64 to 68 are directed against the order passed in I.A.Nos. 130 to 134 of 1987 in M.C.O.P.Nos.26 to 30 of 1987. Respondents 1 to 8 herein are the petitioners in the main M.C.O.P. Nos.26 to 30 of 1987, filed for compensation. Respondents 11 and 12 are the proposed parties. 10th respondent is the Insurance Company. Petitioner in the said I.As. is one Dr.N.Marichamy, who is the 2nd respondent in the main H.C.O.Ps. Respondents 1 to 8 are the petitioners in the main M.C.O.P.s who claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 against the 2nd respondent in the M.C.O.Ps. on account of the death caused to one Krishnamurthy Gounder in a motor vehicle accident. In the said main petition for compensation petitioners have alleged that Dr.N. Marichamy was the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. Marichamy contested the claim and filed a detailed counter-affidavit. According to him, he sold the vehicle in question on 17.8.1985 for a cash consideration of Rs. 47,500 to one Muthusamy, who took delivery of the said vehicle on 17.8.1985 itself. The records relating to the said vehicle were also handed over to him. Muthusamy has also executed necessary documents in favour of Dr.Marichamy showing that the vehicle in question was purchased by him. The accident took place on 8.7.1986, nearly eleven months after the vehicle was sold to Muthusamy. Dr. Marichamy now understands that one R.Vasudevan, S/o.K.Rangasamy Chettiar, Vasantha Dyeing, 8/7 Thondanpalayam, Bhavani was the owner of the vehicle in question at the time of the accident. It is also stated that the said R.Vasudevan got release of the vehicle from the Police custody on 9.7.1986 after the inspection by the Motor Vehicles Inspector. All these facts were mentioned in the reply notice sent by Dr. Marichamy to the notice sent by the lawyer appearing for the claimants 1 to 8. But the said Muthusamy and R.Vasudevan were not impleaded as parties to those proceedings. The 10th respondent Insurance Company disowned its Liability on the ground that the petitioner herein sold the vehicle prior to the accident. Therefore according to the petitioner unless the abovesaid two persons, viz., Muthusamy and R.Vasudevan are impleaded as parties respondents in the main petitions the claimants would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. It was therefore pleaded that Muthusamy and Vasudevan should be directed to be impleaded as party to these proceedings. Claimants in the main M.C.O.Ps. submitted by filing a counter that the petition filed by Dr .Marichamy under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) CPC to implead S. Muthusamy and R.Vasudevan as respondents in the M.C.O.Ps. is unsustainable in law. The proposed parties are fictitious persons and they are hand in glove with the petitioner to defeat the claim of the claimants. According to the respondents the averments contained in the petition filed by Dr.Marichamy are tell-tale and the documents are fabricated. On the date of the accident, as per the records, the car in question was standing in the name of the petitioner and he was having the insurance cover and all the allegations contra are false and irrelevant. According to them the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. would not be applicable to the summary proceedings. According to them, this application was filed after the closure of the application filed under Section 92-A and the particulars furnished with regard to the above said two persons are insufficient.

(2.) IN the counter filed by the 12th respondent it was submitted that the petition filed by Dr.Marichamy is untenable and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is stated that provisions of Order 1, Rule 10, CPC. cannot be made applicable to these proceedings. According to the 12th respondent the owner of the vehicle was Dr.Marichamy himself. He wanted to implead the other two persons to create confusion. It was further submitted that the petitioner can prove that he was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident and it is not incumbent upon him to prove who are the real owners at the time of accident. It was therefore pleaded that the application filed by Marichamy is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein on the date when the accident took place, the petitioner was not the owner of the vehicle in question. It was already sold and transferred to one Muthusamy for Rs.47,500. The petitioner also understands that the vehicle is now with one R.Vasudevan. Therefore according to the petitioner in order to help the claimants he attempted to bring on record the above said two persons viz. Muthusamy and Vasudevan as parties to the main M.C.O.Ps. as otherwise even if the claimants obtain an order in their favour, it may not be possible for them to recover the compensation amount. Therefore, it was submitted that the lower court was not correct in not impleading the above said two persons as parties to the proceedings pending before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.