Deepak Garg and Another vs Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Others

Rajesh Tandon, J.—Heard Mr. Nagesh Agarwal. learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.C. Arya, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1.

By the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 25th August, 2005 passed by the respondent No. 1 M.A.C.T./III Fast Track Court, Haridwar (contained in Annexure No. 6).

Briefly stated, the respondent No. 2 filed a claim petition u/s 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the father of the petitioners and one Mr. Ajay Kumar respondent No. 3, which was registered as M.A.C.T. Case No. 56/ 2002. Son of the respondent No. 2 Sri Dinesh Kumar died on account of the accident took place on 14th April, 2002 with a Vikram (Three Wheeler) having Registration No. U.P. 10-A-7772 which was beingdriven by one Mr. Ajay Kumar i.e. defendant No. 2 in the said claim petition.

The name of the father of the petitioners was shown as the owner of the vehicle in question, however, the father of the petitioners died on 1st December, 2002 and all the heirs and legal representatives i.e. petitioners were substituted.

Petitioners filed a written statement stating therein that the vehicle in question was sold by the father of the petitioners during his life-time and as such on 14th October, 2004, petitioners filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. requesting to implead one Sudhesh Kumar son of Sant Das as the defendant being necessary and proper party to determine the controversy.

According to the case of the petitioners, the information was given to the R.T.O. Office, Haridwar regarding the said transaction.

Present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 25th August, 2005 by which the application for impleadment has been rejected after hearing learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel.

It will be desirable in the interest of justice that let the notices be issued to Sudhesh Kumar for verifying this fact and without entering into the merits of the controversy, it will be open for the Claims Tribunal to dispose of the claim petition after hearing the parties.

However, in the interest of justice, there will be no harm if Sudhesh Kumar is also heard while deciding the claim petition.

The petitioners shall file an application giving the entire details of the information sent to the R.T.O. Office and shall file an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, who shall pass an appropriate order after taking into consideration, the entire evidence on record. The interest of justice requires that the claim petition may be disposed of after hearing both the parties within a period of six months after filing of the certified copy of the order.

Subject to the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.