C.R. No.43 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.43 of 2009 Date of decision:-30.03.2009. Rakesh ...Petitioner Versus Phool Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents No.6 and 7. JASWANT SINGH J.(Oral) This revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India directed against the order dated 27.11.2008 passed by learned MACT, Bhiwani (Annexure P-3) whereby two applications; firstly, dated 18.8.2008 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and the other under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC read with Section 151 CPC (Annexure P-2)for impleading Smt. Birmati, Shri Tek Ram and the Insurance Company (name to be disclosed by them) in the array of respondents as respondents No.7 to 9 respectively, have been declined. In brief, the facts as alleged are that on 18.11.2005, petitioner Rakesh alongwith his brother Rajesh were going on a scooter from Bhiwani to Village Gatauli. Petitioner Rakesh was the pillion rider on the scooter. When the scooter reached ahead of Village Nindana towards Village Baisi, one tractor with trolley all of a sudden appeared from the side of the fields and was being driven very rashly and negligently at a high speed. The tractor struck against the scooter, as a result, both fell down and Rajesh Kumar became unconscious and petitioner Rakesh received injuries on his leg and chest. Both the brothers were removed to General Hospital, Meham by the passengers, who were coming in a jeep from C.R. No.43 of 2009 -2- Village Lakhan Majra. In pursuance to the accident, petitioner Rakesh Kumar lodged an FIR bearing No.292 dated 18.11.2005 under Sections 279,337,338 IPC, Police Station Meham against an unknown tractor driver. Thereafter, petitioner Rakesh Kumar filed a claim petition bearing No.146 of 15.11.2006, wherein respondent No.1 Phool Singh son of Tek Ram was impleaded as driver of the offending tractor bearing registration No.“Applied For”, engine No.3251A30287 and chasis No.302398 as the involvement of the said driver of the tractor and particulars of the tractor were disclosed by the police, based on recovery memo dated 22.12.2005 at Annexure P-4. In the claim petition, respondent-driver Phool Singh and the alleged owners-respondents No.2 to 5 have been proceeded ex-parte. It is further alleged by the petitioner-claimant that after some time it came to their knowledge that in fact another tractor, which was also having no registration number and was “Applied For” but bearing Engine No. E2012705 and chasis No.T2012736 was got released on superdari in the same very FIR number, lodged by the petitioner-claimant and therefore, he moved an application (Annexure P-2) for impleading Smt. Birmati and Shri Tek Ram, alleged owners/G.P.A., who had got the said tractor released on superdari. The said application was dismissed by the learned MACT vide the impugned order dated 27.11.2008, hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the documents Annexure P-5 to P-8 has argued that the learned Tribunal vide its impugned order dated 27.11.2008 has erred in recording that there is nothing on record to show that the police took the possession of the tractor bearing engine No. E2012705, chasis No. T2012736 and on such premise dismissed the application. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, I am of the opinion that the plea of the petitioners deserves to be accepted. C.R. No.43 of 2009 -3- A perusal of Annexure P-5 reveals that in the FIR No.292 dated 18.11.2005, registered under Sections 279,337, 338 IPC, P.S. Meham, lodged by the petitioner-claimant Rakesh Kumar, an application was moved by one Smt. Birmati wife of Chander Singh and Shri Tek Ram son of Nathu being owners for getting the tractor alongwith trolley bearing registeration No. “Nil”, engine No.E- 2012705, chasis No.T-2012736 released on superdari. On the said application, report dated 23.12.2005 (Annexure P-6) was submitted by Head Constable Samunder Singh, P.S. Meham stating therein that the said tractor is parked in the Police Station Meham under the aforesaid FIR No.292 dated 18.11.2005, under Sections 279/337/338 IPC, P.S. Meham. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.12.2005 (Annexure P-8) passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Meham, the said tractor and trolley were released on superdari on furnishing of superdarinama dated 23.12.2005 (Annexure P-7) by Tek Ram son of Nathu Ram for self and Special Power of Attorney on behalf of Smt. Birmati. Therefore, it is amply clear that sufficient documents were produced on record to show that prima facie tractor bearing engine No. E-2012705, chasis No.T-2012736, as alleged, to be involved in the accident involving the petitioner- applicant. Thus, the impugned orders declining their impleadment and consequent amendment in the claim petition cannot be sustained. It is well settled that while dealing with claim petitions under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-a beneficiary piece of legislation- a judicious rather than a pedantic and hyper-technical approach has to be adopted. In the present revision petition, notice was also issued to the owners of the said tractor i.e. Smt. Birmati and Shri Tek Ram. They were duly served but they had not put in appearance themselves or through their counsel. After considering the aforestated facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 27.11.2008 (Annexure P-3) is set aside and the application of the petitioner-claimant for impleading aforestated Smt. Birmati wife C.R. No.43 of 2009 -4- of Shri Chander Singh, resident of Village Nindana, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak and Shri Tek Ram son of Nathu, resident of Village Nindana, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak (respondents No.6 and 7 herein) and under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the claim petition are allowed. The revision petition stands allowed. March 30, 2009 (JASWANT SINGH) vj JUDGE