DHANNA SINGH Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, dated 27th May, 1988, whereby the application filed on behalf of the claimants for impleading Avtar Singh son of Mai Singh as a respondent, allowing that he is said to be the owner of the vehicle which caused the accident, was rejected. This application was contested on behalf of the respondents. The learned Tribunal took the view that since the limitation expired on 26. 10. 1987 whereas the present application was filed on 20. 2. 1988, therefore, there was no sufficient ground brought on the record to condone the delay to implead Avtar Singh as a respondent, as owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. It was also found that Avtar Singh is neither a necessary party nor he can be impleaded after the expiry of the period of limitation.

(2.) AFTER hearing the parties, I am of the considered view that the approach of the Tribunal in this behalf was wholly wrong and erroneous. Since it has been pleaded by Surinder Singh, respondent No. 2, that he is not the owner of the vehicle and it was Avtar Singh who is the owner of the vehicle, it has become necessary for the claimants to implead Avtar Singh as a respondent in order to get the necessary relief in the claim petition. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of limitation as such did not arise and Avtar Singh should have been allowed to be impleaded as a respondent.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, this petition succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and the application for impleading Avtar Singh is allowed.