--.< ^ ^' IN 7HE H1GH COURT OFJODK^mjRE AT NLASRJR(C.G.? WRrrBEmjowM(?2>38 2005 reTITJQftfEfi ^- 8.'t \f: fWWT ^ ,^ 4/^»$ 1^' ^.^ I ^/^/ ^/y^ ^y ^^ RESPONDEMTS ^TWS^r ',^1 /; l)Smt,SiakmtaS3SjRghWd/oJogmdF3 j SinghtAgedabout-40yearBt t^ 2)DecwtatSin<^iSfoLatB]QgindraSingh ftged aboA 17 yeais, 3) Siddhaiftti Singh ^o Late Jogindra Sngh , %edaboutl5yeais/Aff»l'icantn6.2&3 afls repr^iBBfeed byjega) guardiafl Mo erShaku{ria)aSmgha()^icafit{to.l R/o PO!KB UifB, Raffwr, VERSUS ^ ^ 1) Manra ® Pyara sangh S^o Ineter Slngh Qcc^iaBoff Tfuck Driver, R/o Bhaiipun Rmg Roarf, tto.Z, Traresport Oantpanr Rai'pur, Taf) & Oistt - RafpurC.G.. 2) Smt. laswtader Slngh Kww Wfo Maina @ Pyara Smgh, Qtcupation Tnidt Owner, R/o Bhanpun TOng Road, Mo.2, TranspMt CssmfxsRy^ Haipu^ Tab & Eiistt Raipw.fC.G.) ^ 3>Stnt Shma Kaui WJo &nyt StTqh ^o B^hbaSiata, Tah & Distt- Mahasamund ^; 4) Sur?jt Singh ^o GJi.Singh, fVo ^- ^ Ba^ahaa, Tah & Ostt- Mstessmfiny 5) TftefiewfnrfJSfflsw/anceco.UBf. Brancta offlffi nof.Z, ttrougft d'vi'siona/ mana^:, dffii'fcnal Qf&oa, tatehteY chowk ial rcad T^pur,C.G. WRFT PEnnO^i UNDER. J1CLE 227 OFTHE coNsm'ynoN OF INDIA i\^& It^^jrf-i'i -HC—78 s^vw K-fi<* WI 3VKW Sfiwv "T5T ^i^id'1), •cSfll'M'is, r^K'ii'y'j,'1. 35^ W1WI Sh*il<»> Sn^T-qiRi- (Tpfg^?) •^dTW ^lft^ M^I qnqferqi-T tlPTCff •?fs^t ^RCTT ^aiRmai^i S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K^AfearwaI 30.06.2009 Shri SC Verma, Advocate fo|r the petftioners. Shri. Sourabh Shanna, Advocjate for the respondent No.5; Leamed counsel appearing ^ contesting party in this petition br the parties submit that main i Insurance Company which is represented by the Shri Sharma and|respondent No. 1 to 4 are formal party as far as this petition is 'conc^rned. In view of the above, the default pointed out by the Regist(y is hereby condoned and the counsel for petitioners is £xempte<P to serve notice on respondent No. 1 to 4. With the consent ofthe partie^, the matter is heard finally. The instant petition is direct4d by the petitioners .against the >rder dated 25.11.2004, passed by 14 Additional Motor Accident ^laims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur, (foi| short 'Tribunal'), in claim case NTo. 11/04, whereby the applicatio4 filed by the petitioners under lection 151 of CPC fbr review ofthe order dated 10.02.2004 has >een, dismissed. (^) »S : '3^ .<!|ti!d<4^ Bfl1yt|(o, Isltiwy ..'^lil. ^ s?A?t Tra?T ('^fgsi^i) w^y ^T i<-fi<* •(WiCT^i'gnN; TOmK'dftgaotg •2 The brief facts of the case a^-e that, while one Joginder Singh was driving motor cycle, which met an accident with the Truck & in the said accident he died. Legal preferred a claim petition under S Act against the Driver/0wner/ln| The Insurance Company of the raised objection that the DriverfOwner of the motor cycle are necessary party. On objection Tribunal directed the claimants company of the motor cycle as p; petition was filed by the petitioner cfti<{f'Et<fil ^W<n1l ^f f^dl <f4?g,R ^sjfin sii^i 1/as not registered with the RTO, pursuant to the injuries sustained representatives of Joginder Singh ;ction 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles ^urance Company of the Truck. [Truck appeared in the case and of the Insurance Company, the o add the owner and insurance rty. Against that order, a review which was also dismissed. Shri Verma submits that it is settled principle of law that owner and insurance company {if the vehicle which was being ! driven by the deceased are not nbcessary party and it is the sweat 1 will of the petitioner to array therli as party in claim petition or not. <S) aqi Xq pspj MSJASJ jo uopB^ijdd^ sqj, 'psqsBnb s; ^anquj^ sqi Xq pssSBd jspjo sqj^ •p3M^p si uoppsd sip 's-iojsjsqj^ •psqs^nb sq o^ ssAjsssp '%> MBJ q}iM soirepjoooe m }ou si SSBO mrep sqi ui lUEOijdde uou se 3][oAo joioiu sipjo XuBduioa 93HBjnSU1 pUB J3UMO ppB 01 ^UBUirep svft guposjip 'punquj^ sqi Aq psss^d jspjo iBqi uoimc^o psjspisuoo sqi jo mB ] 'pjoosj svft pssrusd §uiABq 'say-md joj psssed jspjo sqi psfjoddns BUIJB •s 'M13( ui prq si irunqui aiy. Xqj svfi jo iJBd sqi uo 3oa3§i[§suAic p.iviwa sqi sonpsj SXEMJB ireo pur ui uoQ^sasdmoo sqi §uipJBMB 3{n sip usq^ 'iagpiaoE jo ssifeo sqi m yavp. punoj si y 'souspiAS jo sisrq iteltshEjte^ ySusji <aai fr yaub. NbBjbiit jssunoo sqi pjEsq §UIABH •l^noo rBui sqi Aq [S qqi3Jno§ uq§ 'B^UOO jsj iisr ps sq 0} ssAjsssp pue ssjSAjsd pssscd -ispjo sqi pue 'pssesosp i^nquiaoo jo IUSUISSSSSB uo pss^q |qpl sqi pue MBJ qiiM souBpjoooB [A psjspisuoo sq sX^Avp UBO 3VOBS psinqmuoo QS[V SBM pssrsosp sqi 1 sqi uo ji isvp. siimqns jsqijrg: sy g—i^itEBsya.MuiaA (tiiiteEjteDjfefekl^Ue ...^^. •i^n.ii^tsj 'iiitt^ 'JiaibUn te-£ itdkyiiktt^ll'e ^... ..^-. .^a^.ulli'tuu- ..-•-4 '^ '"-'^^i '1S B sn^iwfem? ^wisn^nwiw ^ •^si -^WM^, ^•AWS, fadiyy _^.........^1.^.. s^a'^v (^ifvi) Sahu petitioner is allowed. Tt| owner/insurer of the said motor c since the matter is pending sincji Tribunal shall decide the cl^iinl preferably within a period of thre) ofa copy ofthis order. qipifepNwi^f-S fs^'rtaP?R ^sifOTan^t • petitioner aeed not implead cle. However, it is directed that ; 2004 before the Tribunal, the petition as early as possible, months from the date of receipt Sd/- N.K. Agrawa] Judge -^.^. '^s'^ llllt yff i;i J