KONGARA NARAYANAMMA Vs. UPPALA CHINA SIMHACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed under Section 110-D of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939, 1939. The appellants have filed an application I.A.No. 626/70 in O. P. No. 149/66 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, Guntur. The said application was filed under the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 and Section 151 C.P.C. for adding the appellants as legal representatives of petitioner in the main original petition. The application was opposed by the 3rd respondent in the main Original Petition on the ground that the cause of action did not survive to the appellants, and that, therefore, they could not be added as legal representatives of the deceased petitioner in the main Original Petition. The Tribunal had accepted the contention of the 3rd respondent and dismissed the application to implead the appellants as legal representatives of the deceased original petitioner. As a consequence of this order, the main original petition was also dismissed.

(2.) O.P.No. 149/66 was filed by one Kongara Venkateswararao under clause (a) of Sec. 110-A(l)of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 claiming compensation for the Injuries sustained by him as a result of an accident which occurred at about 9-30 p.m., on BO-4-1966 by reason of the lorry A.P.K. 2520 belonging to the 1st respondent in the Original Petition which was bein^ driven by the 2nd respondent rashly and negligently had dashed against Venkateswararao who was proceeding by a Rickshaw with his wife and niece to Peddakakani, The 3rd respondent in the Original Petition ts the Insurance Company. The petitioner in the original petition who was carrying on business in Auto Spare parts had sustained multiple Injuries and also fracture of both the legs which had permanently disabled him. He claimed damages to a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Venkateswararao died on 3-3-1970 while the Original Petition was pending leaving behind him his wife and children as his legal representatives who are the appellants herein. They filed I.A. No. 626/70 to bring them on record as the legal representatives of the deceased Venkateswararao which was dismissed by the Tribunal. The correctness of the order of the Tribunal is canvassed in the present appeal.

(3.) This appeal is contested by the 3rd respondent -Insurance Company, who resisted the application I.A. No. 626/70 before the Tribunal,