Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) LOOKING to the subject matter of this writ petition, while dispensing with the service on the Respondent No. 4, said to be the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, the learned Counsel for the parties have been heard finally at this stage itself.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.07.2009 as passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -I, Jodhpur rejecting an application for impleadment as moved by the Petitioners in the claim application made by the Respondent No. 1. In the concerned claim application, the claimant -respondent No. 1 has claimed compensation on account of demise of the victim Narendra Kumar in a vehicular accident while asserting himself to be the brother of the deceased. The present Petitioners made the application seeking to join the said claim proceedings with the submissions, inter alia, that the victim was the brother of Petitioner No. 1, maternal uncle of the Petitioners Nos. 2 and 2 6, and maternal uncle of the deceased mother of the Petitioners Nos. 3 to 5. The Petitioners asserted that the claimant -respondent No. 1 though earlier obtained the signature of Petitioner No. 1 and assured that the claim application shall be made on behalf of all the concerned but then, made the claim application only in his name; and such a fact came to their notice only when the husband of the Petitioner No. 1 appeared before the Tribunal for the purpose of evidence on 27.03.2009. The Petitioners suggested that the victim was a divorcee and had no issue and that he was regularly contributing to his elder sister (petitioner No. 1) and was also looking after the education of the Petitioners Nos. 3 to 5 who were living with their maternal grandmother (petitioner No. 1) after the demise of their mother. The application was put to contention by the claimant respondent No. 1 with the submissions that the Petitioners were aware of the proceedings right from the beginning and that they were not required to be joined in the claim application for being not the legal representatives or the dependents of the deceased Narendra Kumar.
(3.) THE Tribunal has proceeded to reject the application so moved by the Petitioners by the impugned order dated 27.07.2009 with the observations that there was nothing on record to find prima facie if the Petitioners were in any manner dependent on the deceased Narendra Kumar; and that in case of dependency, they could have made a separate claim for compensation. The Tribunal was of opinion that joining the applicants as parties would create complications in the matter and would delay the disposal of the proceedings.;