Muni Lal Verma, J. - (1.) THE circumstances giving rise to this appeal may be briefly stated as under:
(2.) BANARSI Dass Sharma was employed as Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, in the State of Haryana and he was posted as such at Sirsa in the month of August, 1969. He was drawing Rs. 560/ - per month as his pay and Rs. 146/ - per month as dearness allowance. On August 27, 1969, at about 10 a.m., he was proceeding in Government jeep No. HRH -9328 (hereinafter called the jeep) from Fatehabad to Sirsa. The said jeep was driven by Ram Singh. When the jeep was about 12 miles from Sirsa, truck No. HRK -540 (herein after called the truck) which was driven by Som Nath (now Respondent 1) appeared there from the opposite direction. There was collision between the truck and the jeep, as a result of which the jeep was turned turtle and it caught fire, Banarsi Dass Sharma sustained injuries and burns on account of the said accident. Some officials chanced to pass that side and they carried Banarsi Dass Sharma in another jeep to Civil Hospital, Sirsa, but he expired on the way. The aforesaid truck belonged to Phagu Ram (Respondent 2) and it was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Bombay (hereinafter called the Assurance Company), Respondent 3. Mrs. Sushila Rani is the widow, Hari Har Sarup and Deepak are sons, and Vijay Laxmi is the daughter of Banarsi Dass Sharma. Therefore, they brought a claim for recovery of Rs. 2 lakhs from the Respondents, pleading that the aforesaid accident, which resulted in the death of Banarsi Dass Sharma, had occurred due to negligent driving of the truck by Som Nath. The aforesaid claim was resisted by the Respondents. The facts, that the accident, wherein the truck and jeep were involved, had taken place and it resulted in the death of Banarsi Dass Sharma, were not disputed. The other material allegations of the claimants (now the Appellants) were controverted and it was pleaded that the accident had taken place due to the negligent driving of the jeep by Ram Singh, that the claim petition was bad on account of misjoinder of parties, and the Assurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the claim was tried on the following issues: 1. Whether the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Som Nath driver, and, if so, its effect? 2. To what amount of compensation, if any, the Petitioners are entitled to and from whom? Onus on parties. Whether the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation? Onus on Respondent No. 3.
(3.) WHETHER the petition is bad for misjoinder of parties, and, if so, its effect? Onus on Respondents.;