JUDGMENT
Ramaswamy, J.
1. On January 20,1979, at about 2.50 p.m., one D. Ramachandra Rao, the owner of the scooter bearing No. APO 4577 was proceeding from Kazipet to Hanumakonda and on the way the claimant Vceraraghava Reddy requested him to give a lift and it was acceded to. When they were proceeding, a RTC bus was coming in opposite direction and the scooter driver Ramachandra Rao tried to overtake (Sic. cross) the bus. While so, Ramamohan Rao, the driver of the motor cycle (Jawa) bearing No. APO 4542 overtook the bus from behind and he also crossed the middle point of the road and when it reached the scooter, the crash bar of the motor cycle hit the right leg of the claimant Veerara have Reddy and he sustained injuries. Accordingly, he laid a claim for Rs. 50,000/ under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Tribunal below awarded a sum of Rs. 8,250/- as against Ramachandra Rao, the owner of the scooter (first respondent) against which the appeal has been filed. The contention that the driver of the motor cycle (Ramamohan Rao, 2nd respondent) was responsible for the accident was negatived. For the balance amount, the claimant Veeraraghava Reddy filed cross-objections.
2. The contention of Mr. Narasimha Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant, is that Ramamohan Rao, the owner of the motor cycle, came rashly and negligently from behind the bus, crossed the middle portion of the road and dashed the scooter, as a result the crash bar of the motor cycle hit the right leg of the claimant, causing injuries. The appellant is not negligent in driving the vehicle. The court below had the advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses. The claimant is no other than the injured and he is also a friend of the appellant. The court below having considered the evidence, categorically found, particularly in view of the finding of the Second Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Warangal, that the owner of the motor cycle had not contributed to the accident and the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the appellant. I find that the court below is well justified and there is nothing to differ from the conclusion reached by the court below.
3. It is next contended that the appellant had insured the vehicle with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.; the contract of insurance (Exh.B-2) is valid upto March 19,1979 and the claimant had not impleaded the insurance company, therefore, the claim cannot be mulcted upon the appellant alone. I find no force in the contention. The doctrine of nonjoinder or misjoinder of parties does not apply to the proceedings initialed under Section 110A of the Act. If the claimant intends to proceed against the insurance company without having any recourse for execution against the owner, it is always open to the claimant to implead the insurance company. The omission or failure to implead the insurance company is not an impediment for the Claims Tribunal to award compensation against the owner.
4. It is further contended that an application CMP 11072 of 1983 was already filed to implead the insurance company as commence party and though notice was served, it has not come on record and therefore, the liability cannot be fastened only against the appellant. In view of the fact that the insurance company is not before me, I refrain from granting any relief against the insurance company. However, it is open to the appellant to recover the amount awarded from the insurance company pursuant to Exh. B-2 policy.
5. Mr. Ashok, learned Counsel for the respondent, has contended that the claimant has suffered grievous injuries; he was in the hospital for more than four weeks and therefore the court below is not justified in granting a paltry amount of Rs. 8,250/- towards all the claims. The court below has considered extensively the evidence of the doctor and other circumstances and found that a sum of Rs. 8,250/- would be the just compensation. I am not persuaded to differ from the conclusion reached by the Tribunal below.
6. The question of running of limitation against the insurance company does not stand in the way of the appellant in view of the fact that he has already taken steps at the earliest to implead the insurance company to mulct the liability, under the contract of insurance (Exh. B-2).
7. The appeal and the cross-objections are accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in both.