JUDGMENT
R.K. Varma, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant-claimant against the award dated 5.5.1984 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ujjain in Claim Case No. 10 of 1982 whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition of the appellant-claimant.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows:
On 17.6.1982 the deceased Vinayak Majumdar had gone from Mahidpur to Ujjain in connection with official work in government jeep bearing registration No. MPZ 6780 which was driven by driver Prakash Chandra Dube and after completing the official work while he was returning to Mahidpur in the said jeep, one bus bearing registration No. MPK 5063 belonging to the M.P.S.R.T.C, being driven by the driver Inayat Khan, respondent No. 2, came from the opposite direction and collided with the said jeep at about 6.00 p.m. near Ashok Talkies, Madhav Nagar, Ujjain with the result that deceased Vinayak Majumdar was badly injured and became unconscious on the spot. Immediately after the accident, the deceased Vinayak Majumdar was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Ujjain for treatment and finding his condition serious, he was shifted to Choithram Hospital, Indore, where he died on 20.6.1982. According to the post-mortem examination conducted in M.Y. Hospital, the cause of death was found to be toxaemia on account of the burns and injuries.
3. On a claim petition having been filed by the claimant widow of the deceased against the M.P.S.R.T.C., owner of the bus and its driver Inayat Khan who alone were joined as non-applicants, the learned Tribunal after considering the evidence adduced in the case found that the motor accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the government jeep and not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. But as the driver of the jeep in question and its owner, the State Government, were not joined as non-applicants in the claim petition, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the appellant. Being aggrieved by the award dismissing the claim petition, the claimant widow of the deceased has filed this appeal.
4. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant is that the award cannot be sustained in law as the two minor sons of the deceased, viz., Vishal and Vishwas, had not been joined as legal representatives either as claimants or as respondents in the claim petition contrary to the legal requirement contained in the proviso to Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under:
Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.
In this court an application (LA. No. 85 of 1988) has also been made on behalf of the minor sons of the deceased, viz., Vishal and Vishwas through their grandfather as guardian praying to be joined as co-claimants under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A further prayer is made in this application to implead the State Government and the driver of the Government jeep, Prakash Chandra, in the array of respondents. Another application (LA. No. 86 of 1988) under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code has also been moved on behalf of the minor sons of the deceased. These two applications were ordered to be considered at the time of final hearing as per the order-sheet dated 16.1.1988.
5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the interest of the minor claimants could not be allowed to be jeopardised and they ought to have been impleaded either as co-petitioners or as respondents by an order of the Tribunal when it was disclosed in the claim petition itself that the deceased had two sons. The legal representatives of the deceased must be impleaded as parties either as co-petitioners or respondents as is required under the proviso in Section 110-A of the Act. If this condition is not complied the claim petition cannot proceed, as is held in Kaushalya Devi v. Mohan Lal 1985 ACJ 514 (P&H), cited by the learned Counsel appearing for the intervening applicants–minor sons of the deceased. Therefore, where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not been impleaded as parties to the claim an opportunity must be afforded to the claimants to implead the legal representatives not so impleaded and until and unless this is done the proceedings in the claim petition should not be allowed to continue. Referring to the purpose of the proviso to Section 110-A of the Act a Division Bench of the Madras High Court has observed as follows, in Ranganathan v. K. Gangabai 1982 ACJ 341 (Madras), which has been relied on by the learned Counsel for the intervening minor applicants:
This proviso to Section 110-A has been introduced obviously for the purpose of avoiding multifarious claims in respect of the same accident. If one of the many legal representatives can file a claim petition without reference to the others, then there is likelihood of many claim petitions being filed in respect of the same accident. It is with a view to avoid such a situation and also to ensure that one legal representative does not get the compensation and run away with it without the knowledge of the other legal representatives the proviso has been introduced.
6. In view of the legal position, discussed as above, the application (LA No. 85 of 1988) under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code filed on behalf of the minor applicants is allowed to the extent that the two minor applicants, Vishal and Vishwas, shall be joined as co-petitioners to the claim petition. The impugned award made without complying with the imperative requirement of impleading all the legal representatives cannot be sustained in law and must be set aside and the case must be remanded for a fresh determination of the claim in accordance with law. The question of impleading the State Government and the driver Prakash Chandra of the jeep in question as party-respondents can be considered by the Tribunal if an application in that behalf is made, after due notice to the proposed respondents. In the circumstances of the case, it is, however, not necessary to pass any order on the application (LA. No. 86 of 1988) under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code. The minor applicants can, however, move such application before the learned Tribunal.
7. In the result this appeal is allowed. The award made by the learned Tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Tribunal for a fresh determination of the claim in accordance with law after joining the minor sons of the deceased as co-petitioners to the claim petition. The evidence already adduced in the case shall form part of the evidence in the case for making an award afresh.
8. There shall, however, be no order as to costs, which shall be borne by the parties as incurred. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 12th September, 1988.