D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the owner of the Motor Vehicle and the Insurance Company against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Raisen, dated 10-9-1984 in favour of the respondents Nos. 1 to 5, who are dependents of deceased Hariram, who died on 6-9-1974. The only admitted facts are that on 6-9-1974 at the place of occurrence of the accident the deceased Hariram was found dead with his bicycle lying near his body and truck No. MPC 3501 was lying in a dashed condition against the road-side tree. ( 2 ) THE only evidence regarding the accident is of Harlal (A. W. 2), who stated that the deceased was working as labourer with the same contractor with whom he was working and had received the news of accident. On receiving the news of the accident he rushed to the spot and found deceased Hariram lying dead with a fractured leg and the truck lying nearby in a dashed condition against a road-side tree. The Claims Tribunal allowed the claim of the dependents of Hariram and taking into consideration his age about 40 years and daily earning at the rate of Rs. 10/-awarded a total compensation in the sum of Rs. 18,000/ -. ( 3 ) IN this appeal at the instance of the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company the first submission of the learned counsel appearing for them was that there was no evidence that the accident took place because of any negligence on the part of the driver of the truck. The counsel for the appellants invited my attention to the order sheet of the Claims Tribunal dated 10-9-1984 to show that a request was made for permitting additional evidence in the case by summoning the driver of the ill-fated truck but the tribunal refused that request on the ground that several opportunities for the purpose were granted in the past and the case was pending since 1974. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the truck driver was not allowed to be put in the witness box and, therefore, there was nothing on record to prove that there was any negligence on the part of the owner of the vehicle so as to sustain the claim. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the truck driver was not allowed to be put in the witness box and, therefore, there was nothing on record to prove that there was any negligence on the part of the owner of the vehicle so as to sustain the claim. The counsel for the respondents in reply argued that since the driver was apart to the case and chose to remain absent, the principle of res ipsa loquitur can appropriately be applied to the facts of the case. Reliance is placed on behalf of the claimants/respondents on Pushpa Bai v. M/s Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. , AIR 1977 SC 1735 . ( 4 ) ON the first submission made by the counsel for the appellants, in my opinion, the contention in reply of the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants is well founded. The driver of the vehicle having remained ex parte and having not been examined in evidence, the principle of res ipsa loquitur can be applied on the basis of the aforesaid decision in Pushpa Bai's case (supra) in which the maxim is applied and the law is stated as under (para 6) :-"normally it is for the plaintiff to prove negligence but as in some cases considerable hardship is caused to the plaintiff as the true cause of the accident is not known to him but is solely within the knowledge of the defendant who caused it, the plaintiff can prove the accident but cannot prove how it happened to establish negligence on the part of the defendant. This hardship is sought to be avoided by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur. The general purport of the words res ipsa loquitur is that the accident "speaks for itself" or tells its own story. There are cases in which the accident speaks for itself so that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the accident and nothing more. It will then be for the defendant to establish that the accident happened due to some other cause than his own negligence. Where the maxim is applied the burden is on the defendant to show either that in fact he was not negligent or that the accident might more probably have happened in a manner which did not connote negligence on his part. Where the maxim is applied the burden is on the defendant to show either that in fact he was not negligent or that the accident might more probably have happened in a manner which did not connote negligence on his part. "( 5 ) IN the instant case Harlal (A. W. 2) has given description of the accident which remained unchallenged. Soon after the occurrence he had rushed to the spot and found deceased Hariram lying dead with the bicycle, in an injured condition and the truck bearing No. MPC 3501 was standing after having struck a roadside tree. In such a situation the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur could be appropriately applied and the burden was for the opposite side to prove that the incident did not take place due to their negligence. The appellant in this case having failed to discharge that burden the Tribunal was justified in holding that the accident took place because of the negligence of the driver of the truck. ( 6 ) THE second submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the appellant No. 1 as owner of the truck was joined as a party to the case only on 27-1-1982 and, therefore, claim as against him was barred by time u/s. 110-A (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which prescribes a limitation of six months from the date of the occurrence of the accident. ( 7 ) I have looked into the record and find that the claim petition was filed on 21-12-1974 impleading one Dhanraj Sahu as the owner of the truck along with his driver and the Insurance Company. The claimants made an application u/o. 6, R. 17, CPC on 27-1-82 seeking permission to amend the petition stating therein that it was disclosed in the course of hearing from the document of registration of vehicle produced by the Insurance Company that the truck involved in the accident had been transferred by the original owner Dhanraj Sahu in favour of Bhagwant Singh, the present appellant No. 1, who was said to be the necessary party to the claim petition. The above application for amendment made by the claimants was allowed by the Tribunal by its order dt. 27-1-1982. It may be seen that the original claim against the original owner of the vehicle was filed well within limitation. The above application for amendment made by the claimants was allowed by the Tribunal by its order dt. 27-1-1982. It may be seen that the original claim against the original owner of the vehicle was filed well within limitation. The transferee-owner was allowed to be impleaded at a subsequent stage during the pendency of the claim petition. It cannot, therefore, be contended that the claim petition was barred against the transferee owner of the vehicle. The principle of amendment is also that the amendment after being allowed relates back to the date of the suit. The cause shown in the amendment application of the claimants that they derived knowledge of the transfer of the vehicle at subsequent stage, during the proceedings, having been accepted and the amendment having been allowed, it would be deemed that the party added was before the Court on the date of the presentation of the claim petition. It may be noticed that the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not strictly apply to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal and even such provisions of the Code which are made applicable, the Tribunal has been given an authority to construe and apply them to proceedings before it with such alterations and modifications as not affecting the substance and in the interest of the parties. Rule 14 of the Rules framed u/s. 111-A of the Act of 1939 called M. P. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1939 may be seen :-"14. Rule 14 of the Rules framed u/s. 111-A of the Act of 1939 called M. P. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1939 may be seen :-"14. Certain provisions of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to apply.-- Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act or these Rules, the following provisions of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, namely Order V, Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 20, Order IX, Order XIII, Rules 3 to 10, Order XVI, Rules 2 to 21, Order XVII, and Order XXIII, Rules 1 to 3, shall apply to proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, in so far they may be applicable thereto: provided that - (1) for the purposes of facilitating the application of the said provisions, the Claims Tribunal may construe them with such alterations not affecting the substance as may be necessary or proper to adapt them to the matter before it, (b) the Claims Tribunal may, for sufficient reasons, proceed otherwise than in accordance with the said provisions if it is satisfied that the interests of the parties will not thereby be prejudiced. "provisions of Order 1. Rule 10 (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be made applicable to proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. ( 8 ) I am fortified in my above opinion by the clear provisions of S. 110-A read with S. 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The counsel for the claimants/respondents is right in placing reliance on the said provisions and the decision of the Bombay High Court in Bessarlal Laxmichand Chirawala v. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, AIR 1970 Bom 337 which holds that a duty is enjoined on the Claims Tribunal to add all necessary parties to the case for passing an effective award. ( 9 ) THE Claims Tribunal, therefore, in my opinion rightly allowed the claimants to implead the transferee owner of the vehicle as party to the proceedings and his joinder during the pendency of the claim could not attract the bar of limitation prescribed u/s. 110-A (3) of the Act of 1939 when the original claim petition was filed well within the period of limitation prescribed. Even on the ground of policy and keeping in view the aims and objects of the Act, impleading of owner or driver of the vehicle at some subsequent stage in the claim petition cannot render the claim petition as barred by limitation because in motor accidents such eventualities are not uncommon that the dependents of the deceased or claimants, who have suffered in an accident are either unaware of the names of driver and owner of the vehicle involved in it and may require some further time to make enquiries to ascertain their names and description. In my considered opinion, therefore, joinder of an additional party in a pending claim after prescribed period of limitation cannot render the claim petition barred as against the newly added party. ( 10 ) THE last submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the interest awarded at the rate of Rs. 6 per cent as against the owner appellant No. 1 could be only with effect from 27-1-1982 on which date he was joined as party in the proceedings and not from any earlier date. The Claims Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of the claim i. e. 21-12-1974. This contention of the appellants has also no force. As has been held by me above, the joinder of the appellant No. 1 as a transferee owner during the pendency of the proceedings would amount to be his being before the Tribunal right from the date of presentation of the claim petition. On the date of the accident the appellant No. 1 was the owner of the vehicle and he could not shirk his liability both towards payment of the claim awarded including the interest. The liability towards compensation and interest is inter-dependent. The interest, therefore, could be awarded even against the appellant No. 1 as owner from 21-12-1974. ( 11 ) SOME attempt was made by the learned counsel for the appellants to question the quantum of award but the same was given up and rightly so, because one cannot lose sight of the fact u/s. 92-A of the Act of 1939 introduced by amendment the minimum compensation fixed even for no fault liability is Rs. 15,000/- which has now been raised under the Act of 1988 to Rs. 25,000/- u/s. 140 thereof. The amount of Rs. 15,000/- which has now been raised under the Act of 1988 to Rs. 25,000/- u/s. 140 thereof. The amount of Rs. 18,000/- awarded is actually on the lower side in a case where the negligence was proved. In any case since there is no cross-objection for enhancement by the claimants, I maintain that part of the award. 12 In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500/-, if certified. Appeal dismissed. .