In cases of road accidents involving multiple vehicles, all joint tortfeasors must be impleaded for effective determination of liability and contributory negligence under joint and several liabilities.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (ORAL)

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 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, the