1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Civil Misc.Appeal No. 3348/2006 Smt. Bijola & Others. Vs. Charan Singh Tomer & Others. Date : 24.04.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. D.K.Garg, for the appellants. Mr. Anil Jain ] Mr. Vinod Tyagi ], for the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the order of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Dholpur whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants on the ground that they have not approached the Tribunal with clean hands. The learned Tribunal held that AW 2 Ramkishan son of Bhagwan Singh was infact not the son of the deceased Bhagwan Singh because the actual son of the deceased Bhagwan Singh whose name is also Ramkishan, made an application before the Tribunal to the said effect. 2 Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Ramkishan who was examined as AW 2, never projected himself as the son of deceased Bhagwan Singh. He clearly stated that he was an eye witness of the accident and that he was related to the family of the deceased. The learned counsel submitted that though the learned Tribunal initiated proceedings against the appellant under Section 195 read with section 340 Cr.P.C. but those proceedings were ultimately dropped by the order of the Tribunal dated 12th September, 2006. Learned counsel has produced the certified copy of the said order for perusal of the Court. The Court though initially issued notice to the appellants as also to the said Ramkishan AW 2 but on consideration of their reply, it was convinced that it was not the case of impersonation. Learned counsel has explained this situation by saying that there was dispute between the appellant and Ramkishan, who is the son of deceased Bhagwan Singh with regard to the distribution of the amount of compensation which might have been ultimately awarded. However he submitted that a legitimate claim for award of compensation should not be allowed to be defeated on this ground alone. Learned counsel for the respondents though 3 opposed the appeal but could not be dispute the fact that the Ramkishan, who was examined as AW 2 did not project himself as the son of deceased Bhagwan Singh and that the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. have since been dropped. Having regard to the facts of the case I find that the matter ought to be decided on merits especially so because the basis on which the claim petition was dismissed has itself ceized to exist with the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. having been dropped. Though at the same time I deem it appropriate to direct the claimants to now implead Ramkishan son of the deceased Bhagwan Singh as respondent non claimant no. 5 and cause title in the claim petition before the Tribunal shall be accordingly taken to have been corrected. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order of the Tribunal dated 5th April 2006 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law, with a direction to the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 26th May 2008. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. Bharti