The Claims Tribunal must complete pleadings and conduct inquiries before deciding on the liabilities of parties in motor accident claims; premature deletions or piecemeal rulings are prohibited.

JUDGMENT :

VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the parties; the petition is finally heard and disposed of. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. R. G. Ramani waives service on behalf of the Petitioners, learned Advocate Mr. Amey Kakodkar waives service on behalf of Respondent No. 2, learned Advocate Mr. Vaman Kurtikar waives service on behalf of Respondent No. 4 and learned Advocate Mr. James Lopes waives service on behalf of Respondent No. 5

3. This Petition impugns order dated 10.08.2023, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, at Margao (MACT) in Claim Petition No.88/2022, whilst allowing an Application dated 09.03.2023, made by the Respondent No.2 (Insurance Company) for dropping/deleting itself as Respondent No.2 in the Claims Petition. The Petitioners are the Original Claimants.

4. On 14.08.2022, a motor accident occurred at the Sugar Factory, Dharbandora, involving a Maruti Swift Car bearing No.GA-05-F-1348 driven by Respondent No.1 and a Tata Container bearing No. KA-S2-A-5699, driven by Respondent No.3. The Petitioners herein filed Claim Petition No.88/2022 in the (MACT), at Margao on 24.11.2022, against the Respondent No.1 to 4 under section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (MV Act for short) along with an Application under section 140 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT .

5. Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 filed an application for dropping/ deletion of Respondent No.2 from this matter, stating that on the date of the accident, the insurance policy of the Respondents No.1’s vehicle was for own damage and not for third party liability and therefore it was not liable and had been wrongly impleaded. On 23.03.2023, the Claimants filed their reply to the application dated 09.03.2023 and disputed the contention of the Respondent No.2, that it was not liable to compensate for own damage, and submitted that this fact cannot be determined without proof of the terms contained in the policy.

On the same day the Respondent No.1 (Driver of the vehicle) filed his Written statement contending that besides Respondent No.2 (Insurance Company, Bajaj Alliance) the vehicle was also insured with Respondent No.5 (Insurance Company, ICICI Lombard); notice was issued by the MACT to Respondent No.5 Insurance Company on 04.04.2023, which on being served on 04.07.2023, put in appearance only on 30.11.2023. This Insurance Company was yet to file its Written Statement at the time the impugned order was passed.

6. On 08.06.2023, the Respondent No.4 (Insurance Company HDFC Ergo) filed its written statement stating that it is liable to pay compensation only in the event it was proved that the accident was caused due to fault and negligence of Respondent No.3, without breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

7. On 04.07.2023, the Respondent No.2, filed its Written Statement and, whilst denying its liability, contended that the vehicle of Respondent No.1 was insured under “Standalone Own Damage Cover for Private Car” and third party liability was insured with the Respondent No.5. It further contended that it was not liable to compensate the Claimants.

8. The MACT, after hearing the Petitioners and Respondent No.2, vide its order dated 10.08.2023, allowed the Respondent No.5 to be impleaded as a party to the Claim Petition and also passed an order on the same day deleting the Respondent No.2 as a party from the Petition, the said order is Impugned herein.

SUBMISSIONS:

9. The Advocate for the Petitioner, Learned Senior Advocate Mr.R.G Ramani, submitted that the Respondent No.2 could not have been dropped at the initial stage of the proceedings when pleadings were not completed, as th