JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed to set aside the order and decree passed by the learned Chief Judge of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai passed in M.C.O.P.No.549 of 2015 dated 14.11.2017.

2. The claimants are the appellants. Since one of the vehicles involved in the accident was that of the respondent, they have been added as respondent.

3. On 16.04.2014 at about 14.50 hours, while the deceased namely Shanthi was travelling in an Auto bearing Regn. No.TN-05-H-4435, near South Canal Bank Road, 4th Street, it colluded with a Police Jeep bearing Regn. No.TN-21-G-6000, which was coming from the opposite direction, due to which, the deceased sustained injuries and later, succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. Therefore, the case was registered against the driver of the said Auto and charge sheet was also filed. The claimants who are the daughters and son of the deceased, had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-.

4. The main defence taken by the respondent was that at the time of accident, the driver of the said Auto, in which the deceased was travelling, was in a drunken mood and in an inebriated condition and due to his rash and negligent driving, his Auto dashed against the said Jeep belonging to the respondent. Subsequently, a case was registered against the driver of the said auto and charge sheet was also filed, whereas, neither the driver of the said auto, nor the insurer of the Auto, were impleaded as party to the petition and therefore, the claim petition was hit by non-joinder of necessary parties. 5. On the side of the claimants, 4 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and 4 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4. On the side of the respondent, one witness was examined as R.W.1 and 4 documents were marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4.

6. After hearing both sides and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition holding that the claim against the respondent is not maintainable. Challenging the same, the claimants have filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that mere non-

joinder of one of the owners of the vehicle and also the driver and Insurance company which was involved in the said accident, is not fatal to the case and the petition cannot be dismissed on the sole ground of non- joinder of one of the co-vehicle's tort-feasors. He placed reliance on the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court and this Court as follows: 1. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Arun reported in (2004) ACJ 249

2. National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

P.Kannan and Others in C.M.A.No.886 of 2011

8. The learned counsel further submitted that P.W.4 is the one who gave the complaint before the Police, based on which, the complaint came to be registered. Though in the complaint he has stated that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said Auto, while examining before the Tribunal as P.W.4, he has stated that only the respondent's vehicle dashed against the said Auto. Further, P.W.2 who is one of the eyewitnesses to the accident, has clearly stated that the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent's vehicle. However, the Tribunal has failed to consider the same and erroneously dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the driver of the Auto or the owner of the Auto or the Insurer of the Auto, were not impleaded as party, which warrants interference by this Court.

9. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the case was registered only against the driver of the said Auto. At the time of accident, the driver of the Auto was in a drunken state and he drove the Auto in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Jeep of the respondent. The drunken test receipt was marked as Ex.R.2 and the certificate of drun