- (1.) THIS revision is preferred against the order dated 14.10.2003 passed by Special Judge E.C. Act/Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in Misc. case no.15/74/03 Rakesh Vs. Sumitra and others by which the revisionist application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. along with application 5 of Limitation Act was rejected.
(2.) THE brief facts which give rise to this revision are that respondent no.1 Smt. Sumitra Devi filed a claim petition before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal which was registered as claim petition no. 188 of 1991 under Section 144 B and 140 of Motor Vehicle Act 1998 for claiming compensation on account of injuries received by her in an accident involving vehicle No.U.M.O. 8732 with the allegation that on 25.10.1991 when she was travelling the vehicle rolled over near village Mahraha and claimant suffered injuries and filed this claim petition for compensation for those injuries.
(3.) THE revisionists filed its written statement and disclosed material facts including the fact that at the time of accident i.e. on 25.10.1991 the revisionists was not the owner of the vehicle and in fact it was one Ram raj son of Ram Gopal who was the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time. The claimant also moved an application for amendment and for impleadment of Ram Raj son of Ram Gopal. An application for deletion of revisionist was also filed however the same was dismissed as not pressed.;