HAR CHARAN SINGH Vs. TURZA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The deceased Devaji Kubbi lost his life in a truck accident on the night intervening 28th and 29/06/1980. He was employed on the truck as one of the labourers for loading and unloading of goods. In the claim petition filed by his dependents, the appellant was pleaded as owner of truck No. CPR 9128 which was involved in the accident. The driver of the truck was one Nago, who was also made a party (respondent No. 5) in this appeal, but he remained ex parte. The respondent No. 6 - The New India Insurance Company, with whom the truck was alleged to have been insured was not made party in the claim petition before the Tribunal. At the fag end of the trial of the case, the claimants filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10, read with Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the Code') for impleading the Insurance Company (respondent No. 6) and one Harbhajan Singh S/o Amrik Singh, who was registered as the owner of the truck in the office of the R.T.A. Surprisingly, the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal by order passed on 30-6-1993 rejected the application filed by the claimants for impleading the Insurance Company and the registered owner of the truck, as parties to the case. By that order the Tribunal has held that on the date of accident, the actual and real owner of the truck was the appellant and it is, therefore, not necessary to implead the registered owner as a party to the case, at the fag end of the case. So far as the impleading of the Insurance Company was concerned, the learned Member held that the Insurance Company can be noticed under Section 96(2) of the M.V. Act, at any stage before or after passing of the award in the case. The Tribunal passed the award on 18-7-1983, without impleading the registered owner and the Insurance Company as parties to the case. The Claims Tribunal, did not notice any of the two parties, before or after passing of the award. The Claim Tribunal by the impugned award dated 18-7-1983 completely disbelieved the statement of the present appellant that he was not the owner of the truck involved in the accident. The Tribunal, therefore, passed an award of granting compensation in a sum of Rs. 19,800/-, only against the present appellant, describing him as the real owner of the truck.

(2.) In this appeal before me, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant admits that under the award of the Tribunal, nothing has been paid to the claimants so far. It is obvious that the claimants, having suffered a great tragedy and having not been paid anything so far, are unable to engage any lawyer to defend themselves. Inspite of notice of this appeal, they have not appeared. The respondent No. 5, driver was already ex parte in the Court below and service of notice on him can be dispensed with.

(3.) In this appeal before me, the appellant strenuously argued that he had nothing to do with the truck involved in the accident and he is not the owner of the same. It is pointed out, on his behalf, that having discovered the fact that the registered owner of the truck was one Harbhajan Singh s/o Amrik Singh and the truck having been insured with the Insurance Company (Respondent No. 6), an application was moved before the Tribunal under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code, for amendment of the written statement and for bringing the above facts on record. The only argument advanced on behalf of the present appellant is that the Claims Tribunal committed a serious error of law and procedure in not impleading the registered owner of the truck and the Insurance Company, as parties to the case.