- (1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 14th February, 2006.
(2.) PERUSAL of the impugned order dated 14th February, 2006 indicates that the MACT, Ajmer has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation versus Ram lal and Ors. reported in 2002 (2) TAC 498 (Raj.), holding that where the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation took a plea that its driver was not at all negligent or at fault in causing the accident and the grave injury ensuing therefrom and the other vehicle involved in the accident was fully at fault but had not been impleaded as party before the Tribunal, it was within the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on a proper application made, to implead the owner and driver of the "other vehicle " involved in the accident as party in the claim petition. Aside of the well considered judgment of this Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation versus Ram lal and Ors. (Supra) which has been relied upon by the Tribunal in its impugned judgment, I am of the considered opinion, that an order of impleadment of a party being an order in the discretion of the Tribunal is not to be interfered with specially when it is a reasoned order. The impugned order dated 14th February, 2006 impleads the owner and driver of the motorcycle stated to be responsible for the accident and whose impleadment was necessary to consider the issue of negligence leading to the accident in question which was central to the claim petition.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , I find no occasion to interfere in the impugned order dated 14th February, 2006 in the exercise of powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.;