LEELABAI Vs. M.U.K. NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -claimants have filed this revision against the order dated 13 -3 -1986, passed in claim Case No. 53/80, by the Member, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Mandsaur, whereby the application of the petitioner -claimants for joining the owner of the motor vehicle has been rejected.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this revision are : that one Balaram, husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of four minor children -petitioners No. 1 to 5, died in an accident on 13 -4 -1980 arising out of and by the use of motor vehicle chassis No. T.N.H.T. 5878. The petitioners filed an application under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act'), claiming compensation against the owner, the driver and insurer. The non -applicant No. 2 took a stand in the written statement that they are not the proprietor or owner of the said chassis but they are merely carrying transport contractors, the owner of the vehicle are M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. This written statement was filed on 23 -7 -1983. During the pendency of the application under Section 110 -A of the Act, the petitioners Applied on 20 -11 -1985 for impleading the owner as a party to the proceedings as non -applicant No. 4. The application was dismissed on the ground of delay and further that in the application under Section 110 -A of the Act for impleading the non -applicant No. 4 is beyond the period of limitation. Aggrieved of this, the petitioners have filed this revision.

(3.) IT is true that the petitioner No. 1 has not taken any steps for joining the owner of the vehicle as a party, even after the plea raised in the written statement by the respondent No. 2. When a person, who is impleaded as a party, contends that he is not the owner of the vehicle and some other person is the owner, in that case the claimants are entitled to join the real owner as a party immediately and the delay on joining such a party can be condoned. See Sunderbai v. Ponchbai 1980 -11 MPWN N -72. Though the petitioner No. 1 has not filed the application immediately when it was disclosed that M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. is the owner, but in the facts of the case, it will not have any material effect because the petitioners No. 2 to 4, who are minors, could have filed an application after they attain their majority as they are entitled to exclusion of time of the minority period, as held in the case of Hayatkhan (supra). Hence, the application filed for impleading the owner of the vehicle as a party by them, could not have been rejected as barred by time. Their application also could not have been rejected on the ground as the petitioner No. 1 is an ilieterate lady and it was the counsel, who was to take proper steps on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 for impleading the real owner as a party, but the counsel having failed to take steps, the petitioner No. 1 cannot be punished for the laches or inaction on the part of the counsel. Therefore, there was sufficient cause to petitioner No. 1 for not making the application immediately and for not impleading the owner of the vehicle as a party. The delay, if any, on behalf of the petitioners, in the circumstances of the case, deserves to be condoned and is hereby condoned.