Interim Order 1

Order Details: Order on Exh.
Pdf Text: Order below Ex.12 in Application No.1551 OF 2022
The Insurance company has filed the present
application contending that the applicant has falsely
implicated the owner and insurer of vehicle No.KA-56-2799.
In fact the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the
driver of the car No.MH-04-BK-4053 and therefore prayed
that for adding the owner and insurer of Car No.MH-04-BK-
4053 as necessary party.
2. The application is opposed by the applicant
contending that the Insurance company can lead their
evidence at the time of trial and they have not denied their
involvement in the alleged incident. Therefore in absence of
any cogent evidence on record, the application is not tenable
and requested for rejecting the application.
3. Heard counsel for the Insurance, Mrs. Phadtare
and Shri Dhenge for the applicant. Perused record.
4. The present claim is filed by the applicant against
the Opposite party who is the owner of vehicle No.KA-56-
2799 which is insured with the insurer on record. As per the
case of the applicant the accident took place due to composite
negligence of the driver of the motor echo car and motor
truck. Therefore he submitted that it is the choice of the
applicant against whom to file the present case.
5. On the other hand the counsel for the insurer
submitted that both the vehicles should be a necessary party
and without impleading the other vehicle and its insurance no
proper award can be passed.
-- 1 of 2 --
: 2 :
6. Considering the submission of both the sides and
the document on record, the applicant has come with the
theory of composite negligence and while doing so he has
impleaded the owner and the insurance of the vehicle No.KA-
56-2799 which is a truck. As far as the contention of the
applicant is concerned he is the master of his case and it is for
them to decide against whom to proceed for claiming
compensation. In the present case it is for the applicants to
prove the rash and negligent act on the part of the opposite
party with the theory of composite negligence. Therefore,
considering the choice made by the applicant to proceed
against the present opposite party and the insurer, even
though there is some role as per the other insurer is played
for the other vehicle but in absence of that vehicle also the
present claim of the applicants can be decided under the
theory of composite negligence. Therefore, considering these
facts I reject the application and pass following order:
ORDER
1) Application is hereby rejected.
(M. A. Kothari)
Member, CR-7,
Date : 16.08.2024 MACT, Mumbai
*sb
-- 2 of 2 --