Rekha Palli, J
1. The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the learned MACT, in MACT No.145/2020 titled as Sh.
Shiv Kumar & Ors. vs. Sh. Bimlesh Kumar Mishra & Ors. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the application preferred by
the petitioner/insurer company, seeking impleadment of the owner, insurer and the legal heirs (LRs) of the driver of the offending vehicle.
2. The aforesaid claim petition came to be filed by respondent nos. 1 to 4, seeking compensation on account of the death of one Sh. Ram Saran in the
accident which took place on 16.08.2020. It is the petitioner’s case that at the time of the accident, four persons namely Mr. Pramod Gupta, Smt.
Roop Rani, Mohd. Sadiq and Mr. Santosh Kumar were travelling to Delhi from Harpalpur, Uttar Pradesh in a car bearing no. DL 12 CH 5997. On
reaching a point near Chitralekha Gosewa Hospital near Hodal, Haryana, the said car rammed into a trailer, bearing no. NL 01 AC 6637, from behind,
and as a result of the collision, while three passengers of the car succumbed to their injuries, one survived, but with serious injuries.
3. Consequently, four claim petitions came to be filed by the surviving passenger, and LRs of the three deceased passengers of the car, seeking
compensation. In all these claim petitions, the claimants impleaded the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, being the trailer bearing no.
NL 01 AC 6637. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 are the claimants in MACT No. 145/2020.
4. Upon filing of the claim petitions, the petitioner, who has been arrayed as respondent no.3 before the learned Tribunal, filed its written statement,
and took a preliminary objection that the owner, insurer and LRs of the driver of car bearing no. DL 12 CH 5997 were the proper and necessary
parties, and in order to avoid multiplicity of litigations ought to have been impleaded as party respondents. The petitioner also moved applications under
section 169 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 read with Order 1 Rule 10(2), CPC, in all the four claim petitions, seeking impleadment of the owner,
insurer and the LRs of the driver of car bearing no. DL 12 CH 5997, on the ground that once the car had rammed into the trailer from behind, it could
not be said that there was any negligence on the part of the driver of the trailer, as negligence on the part of the driver of the car was writ large.
However, vide its impugned order, the learned Tribunal dismissed these applications on the ground that, once it was not denied that the offending
vehicle was involved in the accident, there was no requirement to implead any other party at this stage. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner, who is the
insurer of the trailer, has approached this Court by way of the present petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, once it is the petitioner’s defence that the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver
of the car, and not that of the trailer, it was necessary to implead the insurer, owner and LRs of the driver of the car as well to ascertain the extent of
contributory negligence of the driver of the car. Even otherwise impleadment of the parties, as sought by the petitioner, would not have caused any
prejudice to the claimants, and on the other hand, would have helped in expeditious adjudication of all the questions relating to the accident, and in
respect of the liability to pay compensation. He finally submits that, even otherwise, once an application for impleading the necessary parties, being
the owner, insurer and LRs of the driver of car bearing no. DL 12 CH 5997 was moved at the very initial stage, there was no justification for the
learned Tribunal to have rejected the same. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside and the petitioner’s application for
impleadment be allowed.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4, who are the claimants in MACT 145/2020, seeks to oppose the petition by contending that once, it is
not denied that the trailer, which was insured with the petitioner, was involved in the accident, the claimants are justified in seeking compensation from
the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, as they are admittedly, tortfeasors. By placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in
Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2015) 9 SCC 272 and a decision of this Court in The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nisha Devi &
Ors., CM(M) 759/2018, he submits that it was always open for the claimants to implead only the driver, owner and insurer of the trailer, who would,
then be entitled to make recoveries from the owner, insurer and LRs of the driver of the car, if needed. He, however, does not dispute the fact that
the matter is still at its preliminary stage, and is next listed before the learned Tribunal on 22.12.2022 for the appearance of the respondents.
7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I find that it is undisputed that injuries were sustained
by the deceased on account of the collision between two vehicles, i.e., the car bearing no. DL 12 CH 5997 and trailer bearing no. NL 01 AC 6637. It
is also undisputed that the extent of contributory negligence, if any, of the driver of the car, as claimed by the petitioner, cannot be effectively
determined, without considering the stand of the owner, insurer and LRs of the driver of the car.
8. I find that learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 is, by placing reliance on the decision in Khenyei (supra), justified in urging that once the
liability of the joint tortfeasors is joint and several, the claimants are entitled to claim entire compensation from all, or any one of the joint tortfeasors.
However, once it is an admitted position that the proceedings before the learned Tribunal are still at a preliminary stage, and the matter is listed for
appearance of the respondents on 22.12.2022, it would avoid multiplicity of proceedings, if the owner, insurer, and LRs of the driver of car are
impleaded at this stage itself. Once the accident took place on account of collision of two vehicles, the impleadment of the owner, insurer and LRs of
the driver of the car in the claim petition filed by respondents nos. 1 to 4, would in fact be in the interest of all parties concerned, as this will avoid any
objection whatsoever from them at a later stage, regarding the liability as may be fastened on them in the ongoing proceedings before the learned
Tribunal.
9. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside and the owner, insurer and LRs of the driver of car bearing no. DL 12 CH 5997 are impleaded as
respondents in the ongoing proceedings in MACT No. 145/2020.
10. It will be open for the petitioner to approach the learned Tribunal with a copy of this order so that notice can be issued to the newly added
respondents without any delay, and the newly added respondents are also granted opportunity to file their written statement at the earliest.
11. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
