P. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner being the legal representatives of one Jaheen Jamal alias Rumani (since deceased) filed this revision questioning the order made in I. A. No. 1586/ 89 filed by them under O. 22, R. 3, C. P. C. seeking to be impleaded as petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 in O. P. 79/86 on the file of the III Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge) Kakinada.

( 2 ) ONE Jaheen Jamal alias Rumani, filed O. P. 79/86 claiming compensation for the injury sustained by him in a motor accident against the respondents. While the said O. P. was pending, Jaheen Jamal alias Rumani died in another motor accident on 3-4-1987 leaving behind him petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 who are his parents and wife. As he died pending O. P. , the petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 filed I. A. 1586/89 for impleading them as petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 in the said original petition on the ground that Jaheen Jamal alias Rumani claimed a sum of Rs. 18,286. 55 Ps. towards the amount that was spent in respect of the treatment he took for the injuries received in the accident and therefore, as the loss is to the estate of the deceased, they are entitled to continue the O. P. as his legal representatives. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who are the driver and the owner of the ill-fated vehicle remained ex parte. The third respondent who is the Insurance Company, resisted the said application contending that they cannot be permitted to come on record as the legal representatives of the deceased because the cause of action does not survive. The lower Court, however, accepted the contention of the third respondent and dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition is filed.

( 3 ) NOW, the question that falls for consideration in this revision is, whether the petitioners should be permitted to be brought on record as petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 in the main O. P. as the legal representatives of the deceased-Jaheen Jamal alias Rumani?

( 4 ) ORDER 22, Rule 3 (1), C. P. C. prescribes the procedure in case of death of one of several plaintiffs or sole plaintiff. 3. (1) "where one of two or more plaintiffs dies and the right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, or a sole plaintiff or sole surviving plaintiff dies and the right to sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit". Therefore, it is clear that on the death of the plaintiff, if the right to sue survive, the legal representatives of the deceased-plaintiff shall be brought on record to proceed with the suit.

( 5 ) THE petitioner in their application have categorically stated that the deceased Jaheen Jamal alias Rumani claimed a sum of Rs. 18,265-55 Ps. towards the amount that was spent in respect of the treatment he took for the injuries he received in the accident, as there was loss to the estate, they are entitled to come on record. In the counter-affidavit, the third respondent has simply denied the plea taken by the petitioners that there is loss of estate caused to the petitioners. There was no denial that what was claimed in the main O. P. was towards the amount that was spent in respect of the treatment of late Jaheen Jamal alias Rumani for the injuries received in the accident. Therefore, in view of the allegations in the petitioners affidavit, it is clear that the compensation claimed by Jaheen Jamal alias Rumani was towards the treatment of the injuries. Therefore, I am of the view that the basis of the claim is, there is loss to the estate of the deceased.

( 6 ) SRI M. Lakshmana Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lower Court dismissed the petition mainly on the ground that the compensation claimed by the original petitioner in the main O. P. cannot be said to be loss to the estate. Therefore, the order of the lower Court is liable to be set aside.

( 7 ) ON

Click Here to Read the rest of this document