NAND LAL Vs. SHIVBRAHMA SINGH AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.06.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, whereby the learned tribunal has allowed the application filed by the respondent No.1 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

(2.) Mr. Sunil Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that initially while passing the award dated 23.01.2006, the learned Tribunal had held that the case of accident was a case of contributory negligence wherein while 80% of negligence was of the Jeep driver, 20% of negligence was of the motorcycle driver. This finding was challenged by the claim petitioner before this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal NO.2001/2006. Vide judgment dated 06.03.2009 while remanding the case back to the learned Tribunal, this Court had observed that it is not a case of contributory negligence, but is a case of composite negligence. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in case of composite negligence, it is the discretion of the claimant to proceed against a particular person. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was unjustified in impleading the respondent No.1 as a party respondent. He further contends that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impleadment as the impleadment would lead to the case lingering on before the learned Tribunal and its early decision cannot be guaranteed. Lastly, according to the learned counsel, while remanding the case back to the Tribunal, this Court had directed the Tribunal to decide the case within a period of three months, yet despite the said direction, the case has been lingering on for over a period of one year.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.