Ravinthran JC:

[1]This is an appeal against the decision of the sessions court judge to add the insurance company as a co-defendant. The application to intervene and be added as a co-defendant was made by the insurance company. The plaintiff objected to the application. In this judgment, I shall refer to the plaintiff as the appellant and the insurance company who is the second defendant as the respondent.

BRIEF FACTS

[2]The claim of the appellant is based on an alleged collision that occurred between a car and a van on 7 March 2005. The appellant was a passenger in the car. The first defendant was the driver of the van. The appellant suffered serious injuries. The respondent who is the insurer of the van applied to the sessions court to intervene in the suit as a co-defendant. The grounds of intervention can be stated as follows. Under s 96Road Transport Act 1987 (‘RTA’)respondent’s main ground to intervene as a co-defendant is the alleged collusion between the appellant and the first defendant to commit fraud by lodging false police reports. In the pleadings and the police report, the appellant stated that the accident occurred on 7 March 2005 at 11pm. The appellant sustained seriou