IMPORTANT POINT
Claimants in motor accident cases have the right to sue one joint tortfeasor and recover full compensation without being compelled to include other joint tortfeasors.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. These petitions are filed challenging order dtd. 29/11/2019 passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Mumbai by which application filed by the RespondentInsurance Company for impleadment of owner and insurer of Motor Car MH-01-AC-4129 as opposite party has been allowed.

2. It is Petitioners' case that the deceased and injured were travelling in Motor Car No. MH-01-AC 4129 and compensation is claimed against the owner and insurer of the Truck bearing registration No. OR-15-G-6449. That they do not wish to implead owner and insurer of the Motor Car No.-MH-01-AC-4129 to the proceedings. On the contrary, it was the plea of the RespondentInsurance Company that the driver of the Motor Car was responsible for the accident and therefore the owner and insurer of the Motor Car are necessary parties to the proceedings. The Tribunal has proceeded to allow the application filed by the RespondentInsurance Company directing the Petitioners to join the owner and insurer of the Motor Car No.MH-01-AC-4129 as opposite party. These petitions are filed challenging the order dtd. 29/11/2019 passed by the Tribunal.

3. Mr. Vidyarthi, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioners would submit that the claimants being the dominus-litis of their case cannot be forced to seek relief against undesired party. He would submit that the claimants believe that the driver of the motor vehicle was responsible for causing the accident and that the owner and insurance company of Truck alone are liable to pay compensation to the deceased and injured. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Khenyei V. New India Assurance Company Ltd, 2015 ACJ 1441 SC, Mr. Vidyarthi would contend that it is the choice of the claimant to sue only one of the joint-tortfeasors and to recover the entire compensation from one of the joint-tortfeasors. He would therefore submit that the claimants cannot be forced to join owner or insurer of the Motor Car. He would also draw my attention to the order dtd. 9/11/2022 passed by the Tribunal in Application No. 2319/2012 in respect of the claim filed by Mrs. Uma Rani Naidu involved in the same accident, where the insurer of Motor Car was also impleaded as opposite party No.2, but the Tribunal held the RespondentInsurance Company (New India Assurance Company Ltd.) alone liable to pay compensation. He would therefore submit that impleadment of owner or insurer of Motor Car would be an exercise in futility.

4. Per-contra, Ms. Bajpayee, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2-Insurance Company would oppose the petitions and support the order passed by the Tribunal. She would submit that the Respondent-Insurance Company wants to prove before the Tribunal that the driver of the motor car was actually responsible for cause of accident and that therefore the RespondentInsurance Company cannot alone be directed to bear compensation, if payable in respect of the accident. She would submit that in claim filed by Mrs. Uma Rani Naidu arising out of same accident, she had joined Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd., being insurer of the Motor Car as party and therefore there is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal directing impleadment of owner and insurer of the Motor Car to the claim.

5. After having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the short issue that arises for consideration is whether the claimants can be forced to seek compensation from both the jointtortfeasors or whether he can choose to sue just one of them.

6. The issue is no more res-integra and is decided by the Apex Court in Kheniye's (supra). The issue before the Apex Court was whether it is open for the claimant to recover entire compensation from one of the joint-tortfeasors, particularly in an accident caused by composite negligence of two vehicles. The Apex Court held in paras-17 and 22 as under :

17. The question also arises as to the remedies available to one of the joint tortfeasors from w