BYRARAM AJAY KUMAR Vs. BANDELA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the claim petitioner, aggrieved by the order dtd. 29/5/2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, in I.A.No.8 of 2023 in M.V.O.P.No.465 of 2019, whereby and where under the application filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, who are the wife and son of the claim petitioner respectively, seeking to implead them as respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the claim petition, was allowed.

(2.) The petitioner, being unsound due to the road accident, is represented by his father, Byraram Sundar Rao. The petitioner met with a road accident on 6/3/2019 at Vempalli Cheruvu Village. The petitioner has suffered multiple injuries and was initially admitted to Badvel Hospital. He was then shifted to Sunrise Multi-Speciality Hospital in Kadapa. The petitioner has preferred the claim petition, under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.70.00 lakhs together with interest at 16% per annum. It appears from the record that the petitioner's father has filed I.A.No.679 of 2022 with a prayer to permit him to prosecute the case on behalf of his son and to give evidence on his behalf.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC is not maintainable either in law or on facts. He further contended that the question of bringing respondent Nos.1 and 2 on record as legal heirs of the petitioner would arise only after the death of the petitioner. Since the claim petitioner being mentally unsound is represented by his father and the matter pertains to payment of compensation, the presence of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not required for adjudication. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Globe Ground India Employees Union Vs. Lufthansa German Airlines,(2019) 15 SCC 273. The Apex Court held in para 10 of its judgment as follows: