Neelu Alias Nilesh Pandey vs Smt. Chabbi Devi And 3 Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 1668 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 58
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3109 of 2015
 

 
Petitioner :- Neelu Alias Nilesh Pandey
 
Respondent :- Smt. Chabbi Devi And 3 Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.P. Paul,B.B. Paul
 

 
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. 

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 10.4.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Bhadohi at Gyanpur, whereby, the application paper No.66 Ga filed by the petitioner for impleading one Rupesh Kumar Pandey as a party respondent to the claim petition has been rejected.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which was registered as Motor Accident Claim no. 74 of 2010. Therein, they claimed compensation on account of death of Prabhu Nath, who was the husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent. In the claim petition, it is alleged that Prabhu Nath was hit by a motor cycle bearing registration no.UP66E-4760 belonging to the petitioner, on 10.5.2010, as a result whereof, he died.

4. The claim petition was contested by the petitioner by filing a written statement in which it is accepted that the petitioner owns a motor cycle bearing registration no. UP66E 4760. However, it is alleged that the motor cycle belonging to the petitioner had not met with any accident. It is further alleged that infact, the accident took place with another vehicle bearing registration no. UP70AW- 8970 belonging to one Rupesh Kumar Pandey.

5. The petitioner filed an application for deciding issue no.2 as to whether Rupesh Kumar Pandey is a necessary party to the claim petition, and for directing the claimants to implead him as a party respondent to the claim petition. It was rejected by an order dated 13.2.2012. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the documentary evidence on record by way of first information report, charge sheet, panchayatnama, and post mortem report all clearly reveals that it is the petitioner who was involved in the accident and not the vehicle belonging to Rupesh Kumar Pandey and consequently rejected the application with the finding that he is not a necessary party to the claim petition. It is not in dispute between the parties that the order dated 13.2.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, has attained finality.

6. After the trial commenced, Rupesh Kumar Pandey was brought into witness box as one of the witnesses of the petitioner. In his statement, he admitted the case of the petitioner and stated that the accident took place with the motor cycle bearing registration no. UP70AW-8970 belonging to him. He further alleged that in the said accident, the deceased only received certain minor injuries and he was paid certain sum as compensation for the same. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application paper no. 66 Ga seeking impleadment of Rupesh Kumar Pandey as a party respondent to the claim petition. The application was opposed by the claimants. They stated that the application in question has been filed with the sole intention of delaying the disposal of the claim petition. It was alleged that the petitioner and Rupesh Kumar Pandey are in collusion with each other. The application is wholly frivolous.

7. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by impugned order dated 10.4.2015 rejected the application for impleadment. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the burden to prove that the accident occurred with the motor cycle belonging to the petitioner, is on the claimant respondents. In case the claimant-respondents fail to discharge their burden, the consequences will follow. However, Rupesh Kumar Pandey was not found to be the necessary party to the claim petition. Consequently, the application has been rejected.

8. Sri B. B. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal committed a manifest error of law in rejecting the impleadment application. He submitted that the doctrine of dominus litis cannot be stretched too far. It is urged that when it has been brought to the notice of the Tribunal that the accident had taken place with the motor cycle belonging to Rupesh Kumar Pandey, the Tribunal itself should have directed for his impleadment, so that justice is done between the parties. In this regard, he has placed reliance on various decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court.

9. The first decision cited by Sri B.B. Paul in the case of Razia Begum vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum AIR 1958 SC 886 holds that the question of addition of parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the court, but of a judicial discretion, which has to be exercised in view of the fact and circumstances of a particular case. It has been held that in a suit relating to property, in order that a person may be added as a party, he should have a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest. However, where the subject matter of litigation is declaration, as regards status or a legal character, the rule of present or direct interest may be relaxed in a suitable case where the court is of the opinion that by adding that party, it would be in a better position effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the controversy. It was a case where the appellant in her plaint asked for a declaration that she was a legally wedded wife of respondent no.3 and was entitled to receive maintenance from him. Respondent no.3, had in his written statement, unequivocally admitted the relationship between the parties. However, respondent no.1 claiming himself to be the legally wedded wife of respondent no.3, applied for impleadment. The trial court allowed the application for impleadment and the order was affirmed in revision by the High Court. In that context, it is held that where the subject matter of litigation is a declaration or a legal character, the court should not apply the test of there being a direct interest and a person claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the defendant, could be impleaded.

10. Reliance has also been placed on the judgement in case of Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur 1999 ACJ (1) 784, wherein the Supreme Court held that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the court can direct impleadment of a person. In Amit Kumar Shaw and Farida Khatoon 2005 (59) ALR 584, it was held that the assignee of an interest of a party during the pendency of appeal, can be permitted to be impleaded, as his right would be affected. In yet another decision in case of Ravindra Giri Goswami and another vs. Daraganj Ram Leela Committee 2011 (4) ADJ 857, cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been held by this Court that if a person does not have a direct interest in the matter and is not found to be necessary or proper party, the court has no jurisdiction to direct for his impleadment.

11. The question for consideration before this Court is whether impleadment of Rupesh Kumar Pandey is necessary for determination of the real matter in dispute between the parties. Admittedly, in the claim petition, the specific case of the claimant was that the accident took place with the motor cycle bearing registration no. UP66 E- 4760 belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner in his written statement has denied the said fact. He has further alleged that the accident took place with another motor cycle bearing registration no. UP70AW-8970 belonging to Rupesh Kumar Pandey. Rupesh Kumar Pandey, in his statement has admitted the said fact. Admittedly, the relief claimed in the claim petition by the claimants is against the petitioner to whom they claim to be the owner of the offending vehicle. Even after the specific plea by the petitioner in his written statement that the accident had occurred with another vehicle, the claimants have not amended their pleading nor have sought any relief against Rupesh Kumar Pandey. They rather deny the assertion made by the petitioner that the accident had taken place with the vehicle belonging to Rupesh Kumar Pandey. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that Rupesh Kumar Pandey was not a necessary party to the claim petition.

12. The matter can be examined from another angle. In case, on the basis of a plea by the owner of the offending vehicle that the accident had infact taken place with some other vehicle, the owner of such vehicle is permitted to be impleaded, it would result in consequences not contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Such plea would result in enlarging the scope of dispute before the Tribunal in as much as the Tribunal would then be called upon to answer a question which is alien to the claim petition. The tribunal is justified in holding that the presence of Rupesh Kumar Pandey is not necessary for determining the real matter in dispute.

13. In the case at hand, the Court cannot loose sight of the fact that there had been a concerted effort on part of the petitioner to escape from the civil and criminal consequences, resulting from the accident, by contending that it was the vehicle belonging to Rupesh Kumar Pandey with which the accident took place. He admits having filed a petition before this Court for quashing the charge sheet dated 30.6.2010 wherein he was summoned under sections 279, 337, 338, 504 and 304A I.P.C. on the basis of the incident in question. However, this Court did not find any ground to quash the charge sheet.

14. It is noticeable that Rupesh Kumar Pandey had appeared in the witness box at the instance of the petitioner. He admitted the entire version set up by the petitioner in his written statement. It raises reasonable suspicion in the mind of this Court as to the bonafides of Rupesh Kumar Pandey in admitting that the accident took place with his vehicle, a fact which is stoutly denied by the claimants. There seems to be considerable force in the plea of the claimants, that petitioner and Rupesh Kumar Pandey are in collusion with each other.

15. This court is of the considered opinion that the view expressed by the Tribunal in rejecting the impleadment application is perfectly justified. No ground for interference is made out, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed, but with the clarification that observations made herein, shall not prejudice the mind of the tribunal while deciding the claim petition on merits.

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

Order Date :- 7.8.2015

skv