Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THANIKKACHALAM
Dr. N. Marichamy
Versus
K. Subburaj & others
C.R.P.No.64 to 68 of 1988
Decided On : 21-06-1996
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - IMPLEADING PARTIES - ORDER 1, RULE 10 (2) CPC - APPLICABILITY - MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - POWER TO IMPLEAD PARTIES - TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF VEHICLE - REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE STILL IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER - PETITION TO IMPLEAD THE PROPOSED PARTIES - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, the owner of a vehicle involved in an accident, filed a petition to implead two persons as parties to the proceedings under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. The petitioner claimed that he had transferred the vehicle to one Muthusamy prior to the accident, who in turn transferred it to Vasudevan. However, the registration certificate still stood in the petitioner's name. The Tribunal dismissed the petition, prompting the petitioner to file a revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petition filed under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC was maintainable and the proposed parties should be impleaded as parties to the main M.A.C.T. O.P. Proceedings. The court reasoned that the claimants would suffer irreparable injury and hardship if the proposed parties were not impleaded, as they would be unable to recover the compensation amount from the petitioner if the transfer of ownership was held to be valid.
Issues: 1. Whether the petition filed under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC was maintainable in the proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal? 2. Whether the proposed parties should be impleaded as parties to the main M.A.C.T. O.P. Proceedings?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Order 1, Rule 10, CPC was applicable to the proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, as there was no prohibition in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the rules framed thereunder against impleading a person subsequent to the filing of the application. The court also noted that the principle of inherent power to remedy injustice applied to quasi-judicial authorities. 2. The court held that the proposed parties should be impleaded as parties to the main M.A.C.T. O.P. Proceedings, as the claimants would suffer irreparable injury and hardship if they were not impleaded. The court reasoned that the claimants would be unable to recover the compensation amount from the petitioner if the transfer of ownership was held to be valid.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petitions, set aside the order of the Tribunal dismissing the applications filed under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C., and directed the proposed parties to be impleaded as party-respondents in the main M.C.O.Ps.
1. C.R.P.Nos. 64 to 68 are directed against the order passed in I.A.Nos. 130 to 134 of 1987 in M.C.O.P.Nos.26 to 30 of 1987. Respondents 1 to 8 herein are the petitioners in the main M.C.O.P. Nos.26 to 30 of 1987, filed for compensation. Respondents 11 and 12 are the proposed parties. 10th respondent is the Insurance Company. Petitioner in the said I.As. is one Dr.N.Marichamy, who is the 2nd respondent in the main H.C.O.Ps. Respondents 1 to 8 are the petitioners in the main M.C.O.P.s who claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 against the 2nd respondent in the M.C.O.Ps. on account of the death caused to one Krishnamurthy Gounder in a motor vehicle accident. In the said main petition for compensation petitioners have alleged that Dr.N. Marichamy was the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. Marichamy contested the claim and filed a detailed counter-affidavit. According to him, he sold the vehicle in question on 18. 1985 for a cash consideration of Rs. 47,500 to one Muthusamy, who took delivery of the said vehicle on 18. 1985 itself. The records relating to the said vehicle were also handed over to him. Muthusamy has also executed necessary documents in favour of Dr.Marichamy showing that the vehicle in question was purchased by him. The accident took place on 7. 1986, nearly eleven months after the vehicle was sold to Muthusamy. Dr. Marichamy now understands that one R.Vasudevan, S/o.K.Rangasamy Chettiar, Vasantha Dyeing, 8/7 Thondanpalayam, Bhavani was the owner of the vehicle in question at the time of the accident. It is also stated that the said R.Vasudevan got release of the vehicle from the Police custody on 7. 1986 after the inspection by the Motor Vehicles Inspector. All these facts were mentioned in the reply notice sent by Dr. Marichamy to the notice sent by the lawyer appearing for the claimants 1 to 8. But the said Muthusamy and R.Vasudevan were not impleaded as parties to those proceedings. The 10th respondent Insurance Company disowned its Liability on the ground that the petitioner herein sold the vehicle prior to the accident. Therefore according to the petitioner unless the abovesaid two persons, viz., Muthusamy and R.Vasudevan are impleaded as parties respondents in the main petitions the claimants would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. It was therefore pleaded that Muthusamy and Vasudevan should be directed to be impleaded as party to these proceedings. Claimants in the main M.C.O.Ps. submitted by filing a counter that the petition filed by Dr .Marichamy under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) CPC to implead S. Muthusamy and R.Vasudevan as respondents in the M.C.O.Ps. is unsustainable in law. The proposed parties are fictitious persons and they are hand in glove with the petitioner to defeat the claim of the claimants. According to the respondents the averments contained in the petition filed by Dr.Marichamy are tell-tale and the documents are fabricated. On the date of the accident, as per the records, the car in question was standing in the name of the petitioner and he was having the insurance cover and all the allegations contra are false and irrelevant. According to them the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. would not be applicable to the summary proceedings. According to them, this application was filed after the closure of the application filed under Section 92-A and the particulars furnished with regard to the above said two persons are insufficient.
2. In the counter filed by the 12th respondent it was submitted that the petition filed by Dr.Marichamy is untenable and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is stated that provisions of Order 1, Rule 10, CPC. cannot be made applicable to these proceedings. According to the 12th respondent the owner of the vehicle was Dr.Marichamy himself. He wanted to implead the other two persons to create confusion. It was further submitted that the petitioner can prove that he was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
