IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.2357/2009 Date of Decision: 25.5.2009. Sukhraj Kaur etc. ..........Petitioners. Versus Sakatter Singh and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.Naresh Kaushik,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Ravinder Arora,Advocate for respondent no.3-Insurance Co. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). Petitioners filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 seeking compensation on account of death of Balbir Singh in a motor vehicular accident caused by bus bearing registration no.PB-02-AH- 9933 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), driven by respondent no.1 Sakattar Singh. It is stated that at the time of filing of the claim petition it was disclosed by the police that the owner of the offending vehicle was Narinder Singh son of Udham Singh. In the written statement to the claim petition filed by respondent-Insurance Company it was stated that Narinder Singh was not owner of the offending vehicle. However, the name of the true owner was not disclosed. It is the case of the petitioners that on 15.4.2009 during the recording of statement of Sakattar Singh-driver, registration certificate of the CR NO.2357/2009 2 offending vehicle was tendered in evidence and it is therefrom that the petitioners came to know that in fact Birinder Singh son of Amarjit Singh is true owner of the offending vehicle. Accordingly,petitioners-claimants moved an application dated 16.4.2009 (Annexure P/1) for impleading said Birinder Singh being owner of the offending vehicle in place of Narinder Singh son of Udham Singh. The said application was opposed by the Insurance Company. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 18.4.2009(Annexure P/2) the prayer of the petitioners was declined by the learned Tribunal on the ground that evidence of both sides was closed and the case was fixed for arguments. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that at the time of filing of the claim petition,the petitioners-claimants made Narinder Singh son of Udham Singh as a party,being the alleged owner of the offending vehicle, as was disclosed to them by the police. It is also not disputed that the Insurance Company in their written statement simply denied that the offending vehicle was owned by Narinder Singh. In order to frustrate the claim of the petitioners, they knowingly concealed the particulars of the true owner, which was not justified on its part. It is only after the tendering of copy of registration certificate of the offending vehicle by Sakattar Singh, driver during his deposition that the petitioners came to know that Birinder Singh son of Amarjit Singh owned the offending vehicle. Keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case, the learned Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for making necessary amendment so as to implead the true owner of the offending vehicle. CR NO.2357/2009 3 It is not understandable as to in what manner the Insurance Company would be prejudiced if the true owner-Birinder Singh is permitted to be impleaded at this stage. On the contrary, if the prayer is declined irreparable loss shall be caused to the petitioners-claimants. For the reasons stated above, the present revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 18.4.2009 is set aside and the the application(Annexure P/1) filed by the petitioners alongwith amended plaint so as to implead Birinder Singh son of Amarjit Singh as registered owner of the offending vehicle, is allowed. Disposed of. 25.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge