Umeshwar Pandey, J. - (1.) -This first appeal from order has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.8.1986, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bareilly (IIIrd Additional District Judge, Bareilly).
(2.) THE brief facts are that a truck belonging to U. P. State Bridge Corporation had run over the deceased Munshi causing his instantaneous death. A claim petition was preferred by his heirs making (1) State of U. P. ; (2) Chief Engineer, U. P. State Bridge Corporation, P.W.D., Lucknow ; (3) M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Head Office, Bombay ; (4) M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Kasganj, as the respondents. After recording the entire evidence led from both the parties, the court below heard the case finally. On having found that the U. P. State Bridge Corporation, while not made respondent in the case being a necessary party, the claim petition was dismissed as not maintainable and the impugned order was passed. Against the aforesaid judgment, this appeal has been preferred. I have heard Sri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the claimant-appellants and Sri J. P. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Chief Engineer, U. P. State Bridge Corporation, P.W.D., Lucknow.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the party as many as ten issues have been framed in this case and issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4 related to the plea of the petition being bad for the misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. The court below, while holding that there is non-joinder of U. P. State Bridge Corporation, the owner of the offending vehicle in the claim petition, came to the conclusion that the owner of the offending vehicle, being not a party to the claim, no award for making payment of compensation could be given in the case. It is under these circumstances that the Tribunal has dismissed the petition. Issue Nos. 2, 3 and 4, referred to above, which relate to misjoinder and non-joinder of the parties and all such issues required disposal as preliminary issues by the Tribunal trying the matter. In the present case, it appears that the Tribunal has, without resorting to the aforesaid formality of taking up these issues as preliminary issues, preferred to take up the same at the final stage of the proceedings, while disposing of the entire claim. This approach of the Tribunal does not appear to be legally correct. If these issues would have been decided as preliminary issues, an opportunity would have been available to the claimants-appellants for making necessary amendment in the claim petition. But the approach of the Tribunal, being otherwise, an order has been passed dismissing the claim petition and it has virtually resulted into miscarriage of justice. In a case where the accident is proved, entitlement of the claimants to compensation is proved, but when the same is being denied simply for want of certain formalities, it will not be treated as a just and proper approach to judicial matter by the Court. In fact, there has been a contest from the side of the unnecessary party, i.e., Chief Engineer, U. P. State Bridge Corporation, who claims to have done everything in personal capacity but not on behalf of the U. P. State Bridge Corporation itself. This simple formal requirement, which was left over in the case was that of impleading the U. P. State Bridge Corporation as a party to the claim petition and nothing else.;