Skip to content


Madras Motor and General Insurance Company, Ltd. Vs. K. Gopala Mudaliar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1972)2MLJ63
AppellantMadras Motor and General Insurance Company, Ltd.
RespondentK. Gopala Mudaliar and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....no. a.p.g. 344, which was involved in the accident. the petitioner was evidently not aware of the correct name of the owner of the lorry and after coming to know of the correct name of the owner he sought to substitute rudrappan as owner in the place of r. ganesan. it is for this purpose that i.a. no. 17 of 1969 in o.p. no. 1 of 1969 was filed. the third respondent who is the insurance company contested the application and the contention was raised by them that substitution should not be ordered, but that the petitioner should be directed to file a fresh petition. the learned judge has ordered the application substituting the correct name of the owner instead of the wrong name of the owner given in the petition. the present revision petition is filed against the said order.2. the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Raghavan, J.

1 The revision petition its filed agairst the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, substituting one Rudrappan as the first respondent (owner of the lorry) in the place of R. Ganesan in the claim petition. The facts are that the first respondent, viz., R. Ganesan was originally impleaded as the owner of the lorry bearing registration No. A.P.G. 344, which was involved in the accident. The petitioner was evidently not aware of the correct name of the owner of the lorry and after coming to know of the correct name of the owner he sought to substitute Rudrappan as owner in the place of R. Ganesan. It is for this purpose that I.A. No. 17 of 1969 in O.P. No. 1 of 1969 was filed. The third respondent who is the Insurance Company contested the application and the contention was raised by them that substitution should not be ordered, but that the petitioner should be directed to file a fresh petition. The learned Judge has ordered the application substituting the correct name of the owner instead of the wrong name of the owner given in the petition. The present revision petition is filed against the said order.

2. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company contends that the provisions of the Code are inapplicable and therefore the petitioner ought to have filed a fresh petition and if a fresh petition is filed instead of the above petition, the claim would be barred by limitation.

3. Regarding the first objection I am of opinion that this is only a substitution of the correct name of the owner of the lorry in the place of the wrong name originally given. The owner of the lorry is the party to the proceeding but his name was wrongly given. The substitution of the correct name does not amount to addition of a new party. The owner of the lorry throughout continues on record. By this substitution the real owner must be deemed to have been on record from the date of the claim petition. The objection of the learned Counsel for the petitioner on this account is without substance.

4. On the question of limitation the Insurance Company is permitted to raise the contention regarding the bar of limitation in the further proceedings in the Court below.

5. The revision petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //