Interim Order 1

Order Details: Order on Exh.
Pdf Text: 1
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
GREATER MUMBAI AT MUMBAI
M.A.C.P. No. 769 of 2025
Smt. Sarita Ravindra Gupta & Ors. … Applicants
Versus
Sangita Vinayak More & Anr. … Opponents
And
Tata AIG Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.....Insurer
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT–17
1. Present Application
1. This is an application preferred by opponent No.2–
insurer, Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., under Order I
Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying
that the owner/driver/insurer of Goods Vehicle bearing No.
MH-11-DD-7581 and Motor Scooter/Activa bearing No.
MH-03-DY-3470 be added as parties to the present claim
petition.
2. The present claim petition is filed under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the widow, minor
children and parents of deceased Ravindra Mishri Gupta,
who allegedly died in the motor vehicular accident dated
01/03/2025 at about 05:32 a.m. near Senapati Bapat Marg,
Minatai Phul Market, Dadar (West), Mumbai.
-- 1 of 7 --
2
3. It is the case of the applicants that the offending
Motor Car bearing No. MH-15-JW-1155, owned by
opponent No.1 and insured with opponent No.2, was driven
rashly and negligently and dashed from behind, resulting in
a chain impact, causing fatal injuries to the deceased.
2. Submissions of Insurer
4. The insurer submits that, from the police papers and
averments, the accident involved not only Motor Car No.
MH-15-JW-1155, but also Goods Vehicle No. MH-11-DD-
7581 and Motor Scooter No. MH-03-DY-3470. It is
contended that the said vehicles were part of the chain
collision and, therefore, their respective owners, drivers and
insurers are necessary parties.
5. The insurer further submits that unless those parties
are brought on record, complete and effective adjudication
of the controversy would not be possible, particularly on the
questions of negligence, contributory negligence, composite
negligence and liability.
3. Say of Applicants
6. The applicants have opposed the application. It is
their contention that the charge of rash and negligent
driving is specifically against the driver of Motor Car No.
MH-15-JW-1155. According to them, the correct tortfeasor,
owner and insurer have already been joined. It is submitted
-- 2 of 7 --
3
that the application is misconceived, devoid of merit and
liable to be rejected.
4. Point for Determination
7. The following point arises for determination:
Whether the owner/driver/insurer of Goods Vehicle No.
MH-11-DD-7581 and Motor Scooter No. MH-03-DY-3470
are necessary or proper parties to the present claim petition,
and whether Exhibit–17 deserves to be allowed?
Finding: In the negative.
5. Reasons
8. Order I Rule 10(2) CPC empowers the Court or
Tribunal to strike out or add parties whose presence is
necessary for complete and effective adjudication. The said
power is discretionary, but it must be exercised judicially
and not mechanically.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mumbai International
Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels
Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 7 SCC 417 has explained the distinction
between a “necessary party” and a “proper party”. A
necessary party is one without whom no effective order can
be passed, whereas a proper party is one whose presence
enables complete adjudication. A person who is neither
necessary nor proper cannot be added merely because one
party desires so.
-- 3 of 7 --
4
10. In motor accident claims, especially where the
claimant alleges composite negligence, the settled position
is that the claimant is entitled to sue all or any one of the
joint tortfeasors and recover the entire compensation from
any one of them. In Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co.
Ltd., (2015) 9 SCC 273, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that in cases of composite negligence, liability of joint
tortfeasors is joint and several, and the claimant may
recover the whole compensation from any one tortfeasor.
11. The ratio of Khenyei makes it clear that the choice of
the claimant to proceed against one or more tortfeasors
cannot ordinarily be defeated by compelling the claimant to
join all possible tortfeasors. The Tribunal may determine
liability of the parties before it; however, apportionment
inter se between joint tortfeasors is not necessary for
granting relief to the claimant.
12. At this interlocutory stage, the Tribunal is not
expected to conduct a mini-trial on the exact manner of
accident. Whether Goods Vehicle No. MH-11-DD-7581 or
Scooter No. MH-03-DY-3470 were negligently placed,
parked, driven or otherwise causally responsible is a matter
of evidence. The insurer is at liberty to plead and prove its
defence during trial. However, mere reference to these
vehicles in the narration of the accident does not
automatically make their owners, drivers or insurers
necessary parties.
-- 4 of 7 --
5
13. It is material that the applicants have chosen to
attribute actionable negligence to the driver of Motor Car
No. MH-15-JW-1155. The insurer of the said car is already
on record. The insurer has also admitted insurance
coverage of the said vehicle, subject to terms, conditions
and statutory defences. Therefore, an effective award can
be passed in the present proceedings between the existing
parties.
14. The defence of the insurer that other vehicles were
also involved can be considered at the time of final
adjudication on negligence and liability. The insurer may
cross-examine the applicants’ witnesses, summon police
papers, examine the investigating officer, produce relevant
documents and, if legally permissible, seek appropriate
finding on negligence. But compulsory impleadment of
every vehicle referred to in the sequence of accident is not
warranted.
15. The object of the Motor Vehicles Act is to provide just,
fair and expeditious compensation to victims of road
accidents. Addition of multiple parties at the instance of the
insurer, without showing that no effective adjudication is
possible in their absence, would delay the claim and defeat
the beneficial object of the statute.
16. In Khenyei, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further
clarified that where other joint tortfeasors are not
-- 5 of 7 --
6
impleaded, the Tribunal may proceed against the impleaded
tortfeasor, and the claimant’s right to recover full
compensation from such tortfeasor remains unaffected.
17. The insurer’s remedy, if any, arising out of inter se
liability, contribution or recovery, cannot be permitted to
unnecessarily enlarge the scope of a claim petition filed by
legal heirs of a deceased victim. The claim petition is not to
be converted into a roving enquiry between several vehicle
owners and insurers unless their presence is indispensable.
18. The applicants are dominus litis in respect of the
parties against whom they seek relief. Though this principle
is not absolute, it has significance where the claimant in a
motor accident case seeks compensation against the vehicle
alleged to be the offending vehicle. Unless the proposed
parties are shown to be indispensable for passing an
effective award, the Tribunal should be slow in compelling
their addition.
19. In the present case, the proposed parties are not
shown to be necessary parties. At the highest, the insurer
seeks to raise a defence that other vehicles may have
contributed to the accident. Such defence can be examined
on evidence without adding those parties. Hence, Exhibit–
17 deserves to be rejected.
6. Order
-- 6 of 7 --
7
ORDER
1. The application at Exhibit–17 filed by opponent No.2–
insurer under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, is hereby rejected.
2. It is clarified that rejection of this application shall not
preclude opponent No.2–insurer from raising all legally
permissible defences regarding negligence, contributory
negligence, composite negligence, breach of policy
conditions and liability at the stage of trial.
3. The observations made herein are confined only to
disposal of Exhibit–17 and shall not affect the merits of the
claim petition.
4. No order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Tribunal.
Date: 28/4/2026
Place: Mumbai (Shashikant Eknathrao Bangar),
Member, CR3,
MACT, Mumbai
-- 7 of 7 --