Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 74 (KER)

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation v. Velu

2013-01-31

K.HARILAL, S.SIRI JAGAN

body2013
JUDGMENT : S. Siri Jagan, J. The appellant in this appeal is the sole respondent in O.P (M.V.).No.748/2001 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara. The appellant was the owner of a bus, in which, the wife of the 1st respondent and the mother of the other two respondents were travelling. It met with an accident, in which, the wife of the 1st respondent, who was the mother of respondents 2 and 3 died. Seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, the respondents herein filed O.P(M.V.). In the award passed by the Tribunal in that O.P(M.V.). the respondents were directed to pay a total compensation of Rs.3,63,500/- with 9% interest and costs to the respondents herein. The appellant is challenging the award on the ground that the claim petition itself is not maintainable in the absence of the driver of the vehicle in the party array, proof of whose negligence only will entitle the claimants to claim compensation. It is submitted that the name and address of the driver was disclosed by the appellant in their written statement, despite which, the respondents did not take steps to implead the driver. The submission is that without proving negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, the Tribunal could not have held the appellant responsible for paying compensation to the respondents herein. In the above circumstances, the appellant prays that the appeal should be allowed and the claim petition should be dismissed for non-jointer of parties. 2. We have heard both sides. 3. The O.P (M.V.) has been filed under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Perhaps, if the application was under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, even without the junction of the driver, the Tribunal could have considered the claim for compensation. But in an application under Section 166, the respondents will have to necessarily prove negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle for claiming compensation for the death of the wife of the 1st respondent. For that, necessarily, the driver has to be a party to the claim and he should be given an opportunity to prove that he was not guilty of negligence. The respondent did not implead the driver in the claim petition. Therefore, the claim petition is bad for non-jointer of parties. For that, necessarily, the driver has to be a party to the claim and he should be given an opportunity to prove that he was not guilty of negligence. The respondent did not implead the driver in the claim petition. Therefore, the claim petition is bad for non-jointer of parties. Still, we are inclined to grant the respondents another opportunity to implead the driver of the bus as a party to the claim petition. Accordingly, the impugned award is set aside and the O.P(M.V.). is remanded to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for reconsideration after giving the respondents another opportunity to implead the driver as a party to the O.P (M.V.). The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 18.2.2013 for further proceedings. The Tribunal need not issue any fresh notice to the parties and parties shall be present before the Tribunal on 18.2.2013 itself. The appellant shall furnish to the respondents the present address of the driver of the vehicle to enable the respondents to implead the driver. The M.A.C.A. is disposed of as above.