AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Raghavan, J.—The revision petition is filed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, substituting one Rudrappan as the first
respondent (owner of the lorry) in the place of R. Ganesan in the claim petition. The facts are that the first respondent, viz., R. Ganesan, was
originally impleaded as the owner of the lorry bearing registration number APC 344 which was involved in the accident. The petitioner was
evidently not aware of the correct name of the owner of the lorry and after coming to know of the correct name of the owner he sought to
substitute Rudrappan as owner in the place of R. Ganesan. It is for this purpose that I.A. No. 17 of 1969 in O.P. No. 1 of 1969 was filed. The
third respondent who is the insurance company contested the application and the contention raised by them is that substitution should not be
ordered, but that the petitioner should be directed to file a fresh petition. The learned judge has ordered the application substituting the correct
name of the owner instead of the wrong name of the owner given in the petition. The present revision petition is filed against the said order.
The learned counsel for the insurance company contends that the provisions of the Code are inapplicable and, therefore, the petitioner ought to
have filed a fresh petition and if a fresh petition is filed instead of the above petition, the claim would be barred by limitation.
Regarding the first objection I am of opinion that this is only a substitution of the correct name of the owner of the lorry in the place of the wrong
name originally given. The owner of the lorry is the party to the proceeding but his name was wrongly given.
The substitution of the correct, name does not amount to addition of a new party. The owner of the lorry throughout continues on record. By
this substitution the real owner must be deemed to have been on record from the date of the claim petition. The objection of the learned counsel for
the petitioner on this account is without substance.
On the question of limitation the insurance company is permitted to raise the contention regarding the bar of limitation in the further proceedings
in the court below.
The revision petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.