RADHA DAHIYA Vs. RAJESH KESHARVANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission.

(2.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articled 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 4.1.2019 passed in MACC No.369/2014 by the 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satna whereby the petitioner's application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC to implead her and her minor children of the original claimant Rajendra Dahiya has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the accident in the present case took place on 12.8.2013 whereby the original claimant Rajendra Dahiya had suffered various injuries and even according to his claim application before the Claims Tribunal, he has averred having suffered various fractures and other injuries as a result of which he became bedridden and also suffered from bed sore. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that during the pendency of the aforesaid claim case, the original claimant Rajendra Dahiya passed away on 27.7.2018 and hence an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC was filed before the learned Claims Tribunal to bring his legal representatives on record, as the deceased is survived by his wife and two minor children but the same has been dismissed on the ground that no application for condonation of delay has been filed by the petitioner along with the application to bring the legal representatives on record.

(3.) It is further submitted that due to inadvertence learned counsel for the petitioner appearing before the Claims Tribunal could not file the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 along with the application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC, although the application was preferred after a period of around two months. It is further submitted that the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal erred in not considering the fact that the application for impleadment was filed on behalf of the widow of the deceased along with other two minor children, and as such the delay in filing the aforesaid application ought to have been allowed without insisting to file an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.