Leelabai and Others vs M.U.K. Nair and Others

The petitioner-claimants have filed this revision against the order dated 13-3-1986, passed in claim Case No. 53/80, by the Member, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Mandsaur, whereby the application of the petitioner-claimants for joining the owner of the motor vehicle has been rejected.

Brief facts leading to this revision are : that one Balaram, husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of four minor children-petitioners No. 1 to 5, died in an accident on 13-4-1980 arising out of and by the use of motor vehicle chassis No. T.N.H.T. 5878. The petitioners filed an application u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short "the Act"), claiming compensation against the owner, the driver and insurer. The non-applicant No. 2 took a stand in the written statement that they are not the proprietor or owner of the said chassis but they are merely carrying transport contractors, the owner of the vehicle are M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. This written statement was filed on 23-7-1983. During the pendency of the application u/s 110-A of the Act, the petitioners Applied on 20-11-1985 for impleading the owner as a party to the proceedings as non-applicant No. 4. The application was dismissed on the ground of delay and further that in the application u/s 110-A of the Act for impleading the non-applicant No. 4 is beyond the period of limitation. Aggrieved of this, the petitioners have filed this revision.

After hearing Shri S.S. Samvatsar, learned Counsel for the applicants and Shri M.L. Dhupar, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, I am of the opinion that the order of the tribunal is illegal and deserves to be set aside. Admittedly, the petitioner is a widow and there are four minor children. The minor children have got right to institute a suit or to make an application, within a period of six months, after they attain majority. The proviso to Section 6 of the Limitation Act gives exclusion of time up to the date of attainment of majority, the provisions of the Limitation Act apply to the proceedings before the tribunal u/s 110-A of the Act. The point is fully covered by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Hayatkhan and Others Vs. Mangilal and Others, , which after considering the provisions of Section 110A of the Act and the provisions of Section 6 and Section 29 of the Limitation Act in a similar situation has observed in Para 10 as follows:

A claim petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act may not technically be described as a plaint. But it is a petition which for all material purposes is like a plaint and it pertains to a dispute ordinarily triable in a Civil Court. As observed by the Bombay High Court in 1966 ACJ 37 (Bom) (supra), the wide connotation and may include any legal proceedings commenced by one person against another in order to enforce a civil right. In this context also, it cannot be disputed that an application u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is a suit falling within the scope of the word ''suit'' used in Section 6 of the Limitation Act. In these circumstances, the appellant No. 1 who was a minor on the date of the accident is entitled to the benefit of the Limitation Act, and consequently the application filed by him before the claims Tribunal, Indore, is held to be within time.

It is true that the petitioner No. 1 has not taken any steps for joining the owner of the vehicle as a party, even after the plea raised in the written statement by the respondent No. 2. When a person, who is impleaded as a party, contends that he is not the owner of the vehicle and some other person is the owner, in that case the claimants are entitled to join the real owner as a party immediately and the delay on joining such a party can be condoned. See Sunderbai v. Ponchbai 1980 11 MPWN 72. Though the petitioner No. 1 has not filed the application immediately when it was disclosed that M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. is the owner, but in the facts of the case, it will not have any material effect because the petitioners No. 2 to 4, who are minors, could have filed an application after they attain their majority as they are entitled to exclusion of time of the minority period, as held in the case of Hayatkhan (supra). Hence, the application filed for impleading the owner of the vehicle as a party by them, could not have been rejected as barred by time. Their application also could not have been rejected on the ground as the petitioner No. 1 is an ilieterate lady and it was the counsel, who was to take proper steps on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 for impleading the real owner as a party, but the counsel having failed to take steps, the petitioner No. 1 cannot be punished for the laches or inaction on the part of the counsel. Therefore, there was sufficient cause to petitioner No. 1 for not making the application immediately and for not impleading the owner of the vehicle as a party. The delay, if any, on behalf of the petitioners, in the circumstances of the case, deserves to be condoned and is hereby condoned.

In the result, the revision is allowed. The order of the tribunal is set aside. The application for impleading the real owner of the vehicle as a party to the proceedings is allowed. The petitioners shall amend their application for compensation and shall deposit process fees for issuing notices to the owner of the vehicle. The parties shall appear for this purpose before the tribunal on 1-3-1989, who shall thereafter proceed with the case in accordance with law. It is also directed that as the claim petition was filed as long back as in the year 1980, which is pending for its disposal, hence, the tribunal shall take all steps to expedite the hearing of the petition, within a period of six months from the date of the appearance of the impleaded owner as a party. In the circumstances, the respondent No. 3, i.e. the Insurance Company shall bear the costs of this revision. Counsel''s fee Rs. 200/-, if already certified.