B D GUPTA ADVOCATE Vs. RATANLAL BIHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order of the claims Tribunal deciding the preliminary issue that the claim petition is not liable to be dismissed for not joining the owner of the vehicle as a party in the case and consequently dismissing the claim against the insurer only as its liability is co-extensive with the owner under section 96 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the owner not being a party to the case.

(2.) THE non-applicant No. 1 claimant presented the petition under section 110a of the Act, alleging that the applicant drove the scooter c. P. J. 6756 rashly and negligently on 16-6-1969 and injured the non-applicant no. 1, causing a fracture of his leg. He, therefore, claimed Rs. 20,000/-as damages against the applicant and the non-applicant No. 2 Insurance company, showing the applicant to be the owner of the vehicle. After notice, on learning that S. N. Gupta is the owner and not the applicant, the non-applicant No. 1 moved an application for joining him as a party in the case on 18-8-1980. The prayer was disallowed on 27-2-1981 as the application for joining as party was filed 14 months after the accident, when the limitation is 6 months. Then by amendment the applicant raised an objection that for non-joinder of the owner of the vehicle, who is a necessary party, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. The objection has been overruled saying that the claim is primarily against the applicant for his rash and negligent driving and so the claim petition cannot be rejected but since the Insurance Company is only liable if there is an award against the owner, so the case against it alone has been dismissed.

(3.) A Division Bench of this Court in Shankar Rao v. Babulal, 1980 MPLJ 563. has held-