JAMUNA BAI Vs. M APPA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed against an order of the 1st Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam under Order 1, Rule 10. C. P. C. adding the present appellant as a party respondent to O. P. No. 86/77 now pending before him as a claim for compensation for a motor vehicle accident.

(2.) Apparao, the first respondent before this Court sustained head injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 10-2-1977 due to the alleged rash and negligent drying of a lorry A. P. P. 7823. After some abortive attempts at compromise based upon promises to compensate him the victim filed a claim petition in O. P. No. 86/77 claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 10,500.00. In that petition the claimant made K. V. Krishnayya as respondent No. 1 and the United India Fire and General Insurance Company Limited. Rajahmundry as respondent No. 2. He made Krishnayya as party-respondent apparently on the basis that he was the owner of the vehicle and the United India Fire and General Insurance Company Limited on the basis that it was the insurer. Krishnayya remained ex parte and never took part in the claim proceedings. The United India Fire and General Insurance Company Limited filed a counter and contested the matter. One of the pleas taken by the Insurance Company was that the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of parties without, however, disclosing as to who was the real owner which it could have easily done acting on the basis of its information available with it officially. On that state of pleadings the claimant and the Insurance Company went to trial. During the course of the trial the Insurance Company had filed into Court the certificate of the insurance policy relating to the lorry which showed that the present appellant Jamunabai, the wife of the aforesaid Krishnayya was the owner of the vehicle and not her husband Krishnayya. The claimant promptly filed I. A. No. 468/78 to add the wife of Krishnayya, the present appellant Jamunabai as party respondent to his claim petition. Notice was ordered on that I. A. No. 468/78 filed under Order 1, Rule 10, C. P. C. to the proposed party as well as the Insurance Company. They opposed that application. Although Jamunabai, the present appellant, took a vague and general objection on ground of law her main prayer in her counter was continued to seeking an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses already examined in the event of the claimants petition to add Jamuna Bai bring allowed. The Insurance Company was more specific in its objections. The Insurance Company said that the I. A. No. 468/78 was barred by tune and that in case the I. A. No. 468/78 was ordered the Insurance Company should be permitted to recall and cross-examine the witnesses already examined. The half-hearted objection of the aforesaid Jamuna Bai and the full-throated opposition of the Insurance Company on the ground of limitation were overruled by the Claims Tribunal. Jamuna Bai was added as a party giving rise to this appeal.

(3.) I read in full Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act which forms the basis of the main objection of the Insurer and the owner both here and the Claims Tribunal to the addition of Jamuna Bai.