A M LAKSHMAMMA Vs. K M SHERIFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision "Petition arises out of a petition filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) Cuddapah. The petition was filed by the wife and two children of one Subba Reddy, alleging that he died in a motor accident that occurred at 3-15 A.M. on 15-6-67. The motor vehicles involved in the accident are two lorries APD 1491 and APC 2296 and a bus APZ 3855 The Bus APZ 3855 belonged to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. According to the allegations made in the petition the deceased on the fateful night was travelling in the bus APZ 3855 and on the way the bus had to be stopped on account of some mechanical trouble and when it was kept on the road, the deceased Subba Reddy got down from the bus and slept on the road behind the bus; that at that time a lorry APC 2296 going towards Cuddapah came there and stopped and the driver of the Bus APZ 3855 was taking insulator tape from the driver of the lorry APC 2296 and at that time the lorry APD 1491 belonging to the first respondent in the lower court came from the opposite direction and dashed against the bus APZ 3855 when it was pushed back and ran over the deceased and on account of this the deceased received injuries and later died.

(2.) Originally the claim petition was filed only against the owner and the Insurance Company with which the lorry APD 1491 was insured on the ground that the accident occurred on account of the negligent driving of that lorry. The police filed a criminal case against the drivers of all the three vehicles. The trial court acquitted the drivers of the vehicles APZ 3855 and APC 2295 and convicted the driver of the lorry APD 1491. On appeal the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuddapah, found that the death of tne deceased was more due to the negligence of the driver of the Bus APZ 3855.

(3.) After the disposal of the Criminal appeal in the sessions Court, the Chairman A. P. State Road Transport Corporation was added as a third respondent in the claim patition on a petition filed for that purpose mentioning the fact that the Sessions Judge found that the accident was also due to the negligence of the driver of Bus APZ 3855. The present petition in question was filed before the Tribunal to make the consequential amendments in the body of the petition for claiming compensation against the third respondent also; The Tribunal dismissed the petition holding that the proposed amendment would introduce a new cause of action and that on the date the petition wa.s filed lor amendment the claim against the third respondent was time barred and also the petition filed under Order 6 rule 17 C. P. C. is not maintainable as the C. P. C. as a whole is not made applicable to the proceedings under the Act. Aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal this civil revision petition has been filed.