PRABH KUMARI AND ORS. Vs. SURINDER NATH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this suit which is under the Fatal Accidents Act, issues were struck by me on 2nd April 1968. The first issue was:

(2.) THIS issue was based on the preliminary objection raised by the Defendants in paragraphs No. 1 of their written statement which runs as under:

(3.) MESSRS . Sehgal, Dawarka Nath and Soomnath, learned Counsel for the Defendants, have argued that under the Fatal Accidents Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act in this order) any action or suit has to be brought for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child, if any, of the person whose death has been caused and secondly, the suit shall be brought by and in the name of the executor, administrator or representative of the person deceased vide Section 1 paragraph 2 of the Act. Section 3 of the Act makes it compulsory to give full particulars of the person or persons for whom or on whose behalf, such action or suit shall be brought and of the nature of the claim in respect of which damages shall be sought to be recovered. The present suit has been brought on behalf of the widow Mrs. Prabha Kumari Khana and Miss Suman daughter of deceased. From the evidence of the parties it is proved or rather it is admitted now that the deceased K.L. Khana left two sons Dr. S.K. Khana and Dr. N.K. Khana besides the widow Prabha Kumari and daughter Kumari Suman. According to the learned Counsel for the Defendants the suit had to be brought for the benefit of the sons of the deceased also and they have not been joined as Plaintiffs. Secondly the suit should have been brought in the name of the executor, administrator or representative of the deceased. The Plaintiffs are neither the executors, nor administrators of the deceased. They may be representatives but are not all the representatives. Therefore, the suit is bad. Further argument of the learned Counsel for the Defendants was that the plaint had under the provisions of Section 3 of the Act to give full particulars of the person or persons for whom or on whose behalf, such action or suit was brought. The suit was to be brought on behalf of all the children of the deceased also. The plaint does not give any particulars much less full particulars of the sons of the deceased. Therefore also, the suit is bad and should be dismissed, amendment sought should not be permitted because if these two people i.e. the sons of the deceased are added as parties to the suit, the period of limitation having already expired, the suit shall be time barred. Therefore under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure no such amendment should be permitted. The learned Counsel for the Defendants have cited the following authorities before me. : AIR 1947 Cal. 195, : AIR 1934 Cal 632: AIR 1934 Cal. 712 and : AIR 1958 Raj. 188.