Judgment:
ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. Respondents 2 and 3 filed O.A. No. 50 of 1996 before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Secunderabad, claiming compensation for loss of goods, entrusted for transport, to the Railways, the 1st respondent herein. The goods were insured with the petitioner. The insurance claim was settled by the petitioner, with respondents 2 and 3, on condition that they shall be entitled to recover the amount of compensation, that may be awarded against the 1st respondent. In the O.A., the petitioner figured as respondent No. 3. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 230 of 2002 with a prayer to transpose it, as applicant No. 3. The application was rejected by the Tribunal, through order dated 30-11-2005. The same is challenged in this C.R.P.
2. Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the insurance claim made by respondents 2 and 3 against the petitioner was settled during the pendency of the O.A., and on payment of the said amount, the petitioner virtually stepped into the shoes of the claimants, i.e. respondent No. 3. He contends that there was absolutely no basis for the Tribunal in rejecting the application.
3. Sri B.H.R. Chowdary, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the claim for compensation can be made only by the consignor of the goods, and since the petitioner is neither owner, nor consignor of the goods, it is not entitled to be transposed as applicant in the O.A. He contends that the transposition of the petitioner herein as applicant/claimant, would result in presentation of a claim, which is barred by limitation.
4. It has already been mentioned that the claim was presented by the respondents 2 and 3, against the 1st respondent. The petitioner was impleaded as respondent No. 3, only as a formal party. Except that the goods were insured with the petitioner, there was not even an allegation, that it is responsible for the loss or damage to the goods, that were entrusted for transport to the 1st respondent. It is a matter of record, that the petitioner settled the claim of insurance with respondents 2 and 3.
5. For all practical purposes, the respondents 2 and 3 do not have any subsisting grievance, once they got the value of the goods, may be, from the petitioner. They would be under obligation to refund the amount to the petitioner, as and when it awarded against the 1st respondent. Therefore, the interested party in the O.P. in its true sense, if any, would be the petitioner, because there is every likelihood of the respondents 2 and 3 becoming oblivious, in the matter of pursuing the proceedings, since their grievance is already redressed. Though the petitioner does not have any claim of its own against the 1st respondent, its entitlement to be paid the amount, if recovered from the 1st respondent, would materialize, if only the petitioner is in a position to conduct the proceedings. For that purpose, it is necessary that it is transposed as an applicant.
6. The plea raised by the 18t respondent, that time-barred claim would get included, in the event of the petitioner being transposed; cannot be accepted. The reason is that, mere transposition of a party would neither result in presentation of a new claim, nor in extending the period of limitation, for any claim. In Mahesh Kumar v. Col. Harbans Waraiah : AIR 2000 SC 172, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the transposition of a defendant in a suit, as a plaintiff, does not result in a time-barred claim, being included.
7. Hence, the C.R.P. is allowed, and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A. No. 230 of 2002 shall stand allowed.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.