MOHI RAM Vs. SURAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of five appeals, being F.A.O. (MVA) Nos. 119, 121, 125, 126 and 133 of 1999, as they arise out of the same accident and the same award and a similar question is involved in all these appeals.

(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals that appellant Mohi Ram (in all the appeals) is the owner of jeep No. HP-08 0039. On 10.7.1996, the deceased Shukru, Poshi, Yash Pal, Kharak Bahadur, Amrita Devi, Subhadra, Om Prakash and injured Kul Prashad hired the aforesaid jeep on payment of Rs. 800. They had to go to Chuhardhar Temple and return to Chopal. After visiting the temple on the return journey the jeep met with accident and went off the road. A number of persons died in the accident and some suffered injuries. One common claim petition was filed claiming compensation on account of death of Shukru, his wife Poshi and son Yash Pal. The claim petitions were also filed with regard to the other victims.

(3.) Initially, in the claim petitions Rajinder Singh alias Raju, son of Surat Singh, resident of village Motibagh, p/o Malog, Tehsil Shimla, was shown to be the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle. It would be pertinent to mention that he is the grandson of Mohi Ram, appellant. On 7.1.1997, an application was filed by Rajinder Singh for striking off his name from the array of the respondents. In this application it was alleged that Rajinder Singh was neither the owner of the vehicle nor the driver thereof. Insurance policy of the vehicle was also given and the name of the insurance company disclosed in this application. It would be pertinent to mention that this application was not even signed by Rajinder Singh nor there was any affidavit in support of this application. How this application was entertained and allowed by then Presiding Officer of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal remains unexplained. On the same day, claimants filed an application wherein they stated that on 22.11.1996, respondent Rajinder Singh had put in appearance and stated that he was neither the owner nor the driver of the vehicle. The claimants, therefore, by means of the said application prayed that Mohi Ram and Rajinder Singh be impleaded as respondent Nos. 3 and 4. They made it clear that according to them it was respondent Rajinder Singh, son of Surat Singh who was driving the vehicle and not the other Rajinder Singh. However, with a view to avoid any technical objection they were moving this application. Surprisingly, vide order dated 13.3.1997, Claims Tribunal not only allowed the addition of the parties but also ordered the deletion of the name of Rajinder Singh, son of Surat Singh. This order was totally illegal and the deletion of the name of Rajinder Singh could not have been ordered since according to claimants he was driving the vehicle. Learned counsel, who was appearing for Rajinder Singh, son of Surat Singh, made a statement that he would also put in appearance for the newly added respondents. However, reply on behalf of the respondent No. 2 was not filed. The respondent No. 2 was served through his uncle and was proceeded ex parte. On 18.7.1997, all the five petitions were consolidated and common issues were framed.