The insurance company is liable to satisfy the claim for compensation even though the legal representatives of the deceased owner of the truck were not brought on record, as the insurance company had taken over the defence of the claim petition in the name of the insured and had contested the claim on merits.

1. Natha Singh, appellant, who was injured in an accident which had taken place on June 9, 1968, at 5.30 A.M., filed his claim petition on July 17, 1968, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ropar (hereinafter called the Tribunal), claiming compensation to the tune of Rupees 80,000/-, on the allegations that on June 9, 1968, at about 5.30 A.M. he was going in a cart to the fields when Gurdial Singh respondent No.1 driving truck no. PNU-2229 came from Dera Bassi side, at a high speed and struck with the cart with the result, Natha Singh, appellant, was injured and one ox died. It was alleged therein that the act of Gurdial Singh, respondent, was rash and negligent driving of the truck. In his claim application, the appellant arrayed Gurdial Singh, the driver of the truck, Amrit Lal Gupta and Darshan Singh, as the owners of the truck and the National Insurance Company, as the insurer of the truck. However, the claim petition qua Gurdial Singh, was dismissed on Oct. 20, 1971, for non-payment of the process fee. Amrit Lal Gupta, respondent, was served for Dec. 18, 1969, but he failed to attend the Court as he was confined to bed according to the report made on the summons. Subsequently, he died and Shri J.S. Chatha, the then Presiding Officer, of the Tribunal, declined to bring his legal representatives on the record by his detailed order dated April 12, 1972. Darshan Singh, the other alleged owner of the truck, was proceeded ex parte as he failed to appear in spite of service. Thus, the claim was contested by the National Insurance Company alone which filed its written statement dated August 17, 1971. In one of the additional pleas taken in the written statement, it was pleaded that the replying respondent (the insurance company) takes over the defence of the claim in the name of the insured to contest the case as they have reserved this right under the policy of insurance. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues on Nov. 17, 1971 :

1. Was the accident due to any negligent act on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved ?

2. What should be the quantum of compensation due, if any, and from whom to whom ?

3. Whether the application is time-barred ?

4. Relief.

On issue No.3, it was found that the application was clearly within time. Issue No.1 was also found in favour of the claimant holding that the accident had resulted due to the rash and negligent act on the part of Gurdial Singh, the driver of the truck. On the question of quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal found that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- would meet the ends of justice. In spite of this finding, the claim petition was dismissed on the ground that since the claimant failed to bring the legal representatives of the deceased Amrit Lal Gupta, the owner of the truck, on the record, and his application was dismissed vide order dated April 12, 1972 being inordinately delayed, no order under S.96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act), could be passed against the insurance company because the very insured had not appeared in the Court and his legal representatives were not brought on the record. However, as regards Darshan Singh, respondent, it was found that there was no documentary evidence on the record to show that the truck, in question, belonged to him. Feeling aggrieved against the same the claimant has come up in appeal to this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant, contended that admittedly Amrit Lal Gupta, was arrayed as a respondent in the claim petition filed by him and he was also served therein. Subsequently, though the application for bringing his legal representatives on the record was made, yet the same was dismissed on April 12, 1972. According to the learned counsel, in view of the written statement filed on behalf of the insurance company and the plea taken in para 3 of the additional pleas, it was not necessary for him to implead the legal representatives of Am