N JAMAL Vs. N SRINIVASA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners being the legal representatives of one Jaheen Jamal alias Rumani (since deceased) filed this revision questioning the order made in I.A.No.1586/89 filed by them under Order 22, Rule 3 C.P.C. seeking to be impleaded as petitioner Nos.2 to 4 in O.P. 79/86 on the file of the III Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge), Kakinada.

(2.) One Jaheen Jamal alias Rumani, filed O.P.79/86 claiming compensation for the injury sustained by him in a motor accident against the respondents. While the said O.P. was pending, Jaheen Jamal alias Rumani died in another motor accident on 3-4-1987 leaving behind him petitioner Nos.2 to 4 who are his parents and wife. As he died pending O.P., the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 filed I.A. 1586/89 for impleading them as petitioner Nos.2 to 4 in the said Original Petition on the ground that Jaheen Jamal alias Rumani claimed a sum of Rs. 18,286.55 ps. towards the amount that was spent in respect of the treatment he took for the injuries received in the accident and therefore, as the loss is to the estate of the deceased, they are entitled to continue the O.P. as his legal representatives. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 who are the driver and the owner of the ill-fated vehicle remained ex parte. The third respondent who is the Insurance Company, resisted the said application contending that they cannot be permitted to come on record as the legal representatives of the deceased because the cause of action does not survive. The lower Court, however, 'accepted the contention of the third respondent and dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition is filed.

(3.) Now, the question that falls for consideration in, this revision is, whether the petitioners should be permitted to be brought on record as petitioner Nos.2 to 4 in the main O.P. as the legal representatives of the deceased-Jaheen Jamal alias Rumani?