Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
R S R T C vs Smt Gulab Kanwar And Ors on 11 May, 2010
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5774/2010 RSRTC, Jaipur Vs. Smt. Gulab Kanwar & Ors. & S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5775/2010 RSRTC, Jaipur & Anr. Vs. Dr. Harish Bhatnagar & Ors. Date Of Order :: 11/05/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. V.S. Yadav, for petitioners.
Both the petitions since involve common question, hence were heard together and are being disposed of by the present order.
The claimant-respondents-legal heirs of the deceased and injured-claimant filed claim applications before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, initially impleading driver and statutory corporation as respondents in the claim applications and since the driver could not have been served and after taking legal advise, the name of driver, on their request, was deleted from the array of the respondents vide orders dt.6.9.07 & 4.10.07 in both the claim applications, but it appears that lateron they were apprised about the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena (2007(1) MACD (SC) 390) and taking note thereof, application was filed seeking permission to implead the driver as respondent which was opposed by the present petitioner on the premise that it amounts to review of the earlier order passed by the Tribunal and provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC are not applicable in absence of any statutory provision under the Act; however, the learned Tribunal taking note of the material granted permission to implead the driver as respondent on payment of cost of Rs.500/- vide order impugned dt.29.3.2010.
Counsel submits that the later order, impugned herein dt.29.3.2010, is nothing but review of the earlier order passed by the Tribunal which is not permissible under law.
In the opinion of this Court, the submission made is without substance for the reason that driver was originally arrayed in the claim application filed by the respondent-claimants but because of the delay in their application being adjudicated on merits, claimant-respondents considered it appropriate to pray for deleting the name of driver from the array of respondents, which was allowed and later on application being filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment of driver as one of respondents, was allowed by the Tribunal under order impugned and granting permission to implead the driver at a later stage cannot be considered as a review of earlier order passed by the Tribunal and even otherwise looking to the nature of the controversy and being beneficial legislation, the application filed to implead driver as one of defendants, causes no prejudice to the present petitioner, as well.
Consequently, I find no substance in these petitions and the same are hereby dismissed.
(Ajay Rastogi),J.
VS Shekhawat/-
5774cw10May11Fnl.do