NATHA SINGH Vs. GURDIAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Natha Singh, appellant, who was injured in an accident which had taken place on June 9, 1968, at 5. 30 A. M. filed his claim petition on July 17, 1968, before the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Ropar (hereinafter called the Tribunal), claiming compensation to the tune of Rupees 80,000/-. on the allegations that on June 9, 1968, at about 5. 30 A. M. he has going in a cart to the fields when Gurdial Singh respondent No. 1 driving truck no. PNU-2229 came from Dera Bassi side, at a high speed and struck with the cart with the result, Natha Singh, appellant, was injured and one ox died. It was alleged therein that the act of Gurdial Singh, respondent, was rash and negligent driving of the truck. In his claim application, the appellant arrayed Gurdial Singh, the driver of the truck, Amrit Lal Gupta and Darshan Singh, as the owners of the truck and the National Insurance Company, as the insurer of the truck. However, the claim petition qua Gurdial Singh, was dismissed on Oct. 20, 1971, for non-payment of the process fee. Amrit Lal Gupta, respondent, was served for Dec. 18, 1969, but he failed to attend the Court as he was confined to bed according to the report made on the summons. Subsequently, he died and Shri J. S. Chatha, the then Presiding Officer, of the Tribunal declined to bring his legal representatives on the record by his detailed order dated April 12, 1972. Darshan Singh, the other alleged owner of the truck, was proceeded ex parte as he failed to appear in spite of service. Thus, the claim was contested by the National Insurance Company alone which filed its written statement dated August 17, 1971. In one of the additional pleas taken in the written statement, it was pleaded that the replying respondent (the insurance company) takes over the defence of the claim in the name of the insured to contest the case as they have reserved this right under the policy of insurance. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues on Nov. 17, 19711 :

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant, contended that admittedly Amrit Lal Gupta, was arrayed as a respondent in the claim petition filed by him and he was also served therein. Subsequently, though the application for bringing his legal representatives on the record was made, yet the same was dismissed on April 12, 1972. According to the learned counsel, in view of the written statement filed on behalf of the insurance company and the plea taken in para 3 of the additional pleas, it was not necessary for him to implead the legal representatives of Amrit Lal Gupta, deceased, in his place. He has also referred to the order of the Tribunal, recorded while Kartar Singh, A. W. 1, was being examined. When this witness was being cross-examined by the learned counsel for the insurance company, it was objected to by the claimant and on his objection, the Tribunal passed the following order :

(3.) Section 96 of the Act provides for the duty of the insurers to satisfy judgments against persons insured in respect of third party risks. It also provides that the insurance company or the insurer to whom the notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is given, shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the grounds given therein. Section 102 of the Act provides,-