logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1174 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2098 of 2006
Judges: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Parties : Penumatcha Tagore Raju Versus V. Appa Rao Anr & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Josyula Bhaskara Rao, Advocate. For the Respondent: K. Srinivasa Prasad SC for APSRTC, B.G. Uma Devi, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 10-07-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- None

2. Catch Words:
- non‑joinder of necessary parties
- compensation
- motor accidents
- appeal

3. Summary:
The appellant, son of the deceased, appealed against the Tribunal’s dismissal of his claim for compensation on the ground that the deceased’s daughters were not joined as parties. The Tribunal had held the petition bad for non‑joinder of necessary parties despite finding the accident caused by the driver’s rash negligence. The Court observed that the claimant failed to implead the daughters and therefore remanded the case to the Tribunal for compensation assessment after proper joinder of the sisters. The order of the Tribunal dated 20.07.2005 was set aside, and the matter was directed to be disposed of within three months of joinder. Interim orders were vacated and pending petitions closed.

4. Conclusion:
Appeal Allowed
Judgment :-

1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 20.07.2005 (hereinafter called as ‘Impugned award’) passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’), in M.V.O.P.No.154 of 2002 (hereinafter called as ‘Claim petition’).

2. The appellant is the claimant, who is son of one Penumatcha Narasimha Raju (hereinafter called as ‘deceased’), before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the driver and owner/APSRTC of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP 10Z 2193 (hereinafter called as ‘crime bus’).

3. The present appeal is preferred by the claimant against the finding of the Tribunal that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., all the legal heirs of the deceased, thereby, the claim application is dismissed.

4. Heard Sri J.Bashkara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Ms.B.G.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that the sisters of the claimant are not necessary parties to the petition and the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation to the claimant for the death of the deceased. He further submits that if the Court opined that they are proper and necessary parties to the claim petition, the claimant would have take steps to implead them as parties, thereby, prays to consider the present appeal.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC submits that the daughters of the deceased, who are admittedly also legal representatives of the deceased, are not shown as parties, due to which the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim application, thereby, the Court may pass appropriate orders.

7. Having regard to the above submissions and on perusal of the record, it is categorical that the petitioner is not shown the daughters of the deceased either as claimants or respondents. If they are not come forward to seek compensation for the death of the deceased, he would have shown them as respondents to proceed with the matter, but he did not do so. However, when the Tribunal gave categorically findings that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1/driver of the crime bus, resulting death of the deceased, without assessing the compensation entitled by the claimant, came to the conclusion that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

8. In that view, it is very much required to remand the matter to the Tribunal for assessment of the compensation entitled by the claimant after impleading all the proper and necessary parties.

9. Accordingly, the present M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by setting aside the order dated 20.07.2005 passed in M.V.O.P.No.154 of 2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada. Consequently, the matter is remand to the Tribunal by giving liberty to the claimant to implead his sisters, who are daughters of the deceased. Further directed the Tribunal to dispose of the matter within three (3) months from the date of impelad of all the necessary parties by the appellant/claimant, since it an old case of the year, 2002.

Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal