IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.405 of 2010 Between:
M.Venugopal Reddy and another . PETITIONERS AND United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Branch Manager, Madanapalle, Chittoor District The Court made the following:
. RESPONDENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.405 of 2010
ORDER:
In spite of service of notice none appeared for the respondent- insurance company.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
The petitioners filed O.P.203/2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madanapalli claiming compensation of Rs.4 lakhs under Sec.166 Motor Vehicles Act for the death of their son Mr.M.Madhukar Reddy who died in a road accident occurred on 19.12.2004.
It is the case of the petitioners that on 19.12.2004 their son went to Angallu on business to sell Anapakayalu, and after completing the business he returned to his home on his bicycle and while he was proceeding towards Mandamvaripalli village from Angallu and when reached to Gurramkonda Madanapalli Road at Jogivani Indlu, the driver of the offending tractor bearing No. A.P.03H6274 and trailor bearing No.03H6275 coming in the opposite direction drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner in high speed without taking proper care and caution dashed against the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down from the bicycle and sustained fatal bleeding injuries and while undergoing treatment in Madanapalli Government Hospital, he was succumbed to injuries. It is stated that a Criminal Case in CC.73/2005 was registered against the driver on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalli and the same was disposed of on 11.10.2006.
The said OP was filed against the insurance company alone without impleading the owner and driver of the vehicle. The petitioners herein filed I.A.1538/2009 under Or.1 Rule-10 CPC for impleading the driver of the said offending vehicle who is necessary and proper party for effective adjudication of the matter. The Court below dismissed the said application under the impugned order on the ground that the deceased person is no other than the son of the claimants and the vehicle involved in the accident also belongs to the claimants, and the privity of contract in respect of the compensation claim is only between the insured and the insurer and so, the driver is not necessary party to the above O.P.
I am not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the accident said to have been occurred, resulting in the death of the son of the claimants. Admittedly, the insured is not a party to the OP. In the absence of insured as a party to the OP the question as to whether the claimants are entitled for compensation is a matter to be considered by the Court below. However, as the application is filed seeking to implead the driver, who is responsible for the accident, it cannot be said that the driver is not proper and necessary party. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the revision petition. Accordingly, the impugned order dismissing the application seeking for impleadment of the driver is set aside and the driver is permitted to be impleaded as party respondent in the said OP.
The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 25.06.2010 Dsr