Non-joinder of joint tortfeasors in an accident involving composite negligence will not be fatal to the claim, and impleading joint tortfeasors will avoid multiplicity of proceedings and enable the determination of the extent of composite negligence.

1. The order under challenge in the present Civil Revision Petition is against allowing the application seeking for impleadment of the owners of the two wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 29 AD 3655. According to the learned counsel for the second respondent, the accident occurred out of rash and negligence of the two wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 29 AD 3655 as evidenced in the FIR and as such, they are necessary parties in the proceedings before the trial Court. It is on this basis, the second respondent herein had filed the application for impleading the respondents 3 to 6.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in the case of Kheynei vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2015) 9 SCC 273 submitted that the non-impleadment of the other parties would not be fatal to the proceedings and that, since the present case is alleged to be one of composite negligence, one of the joint tort feasors is a sufficient party to the proceedings and the non- impleadment of the other tort feasors is not required.

3. The learned counsel for the second respondent on the other hand submits that the FIR clearly discloses the involvement of two wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 29 AD 3655 and as such, the respondents ought to have impleaded them as a party respondent. By not impleading the necessary parties, this respondent should not be burdened to initiate independent proceedings after the award against other tort feasors, which according to him would result in multiplicity of proceedings. It is his further submission that the tribunal had correctly ordered the application made by its respondents by impleading the joint tort feasors as party respondents.

4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels.

5. The claim petition filed by the petitioner herein discloses the involvement of three vehicles in the accident. It is a categorical case of the claimant that the accident occurred when the two wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 29 AD 3655 hit the claimant's two wheeler which resulted in both occupants being thrown down from their two wheelers and consequently, the lorry bearing Registration No. TN 52 H 0992 insured with the second respondent herein had ran over the claimant. The FIR also refers to the involvement of the three vehicles in the accident and as such, the petitioner did have knowledge of the fact of the involvement of two wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 29 AD 3655. The petitioner herein had not impleaded the concerned owners of the two wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 29 AD 3655 in the first instance. The second respondent herein had filed a counter on 25.01.2016, wherein a specific plea was taken for the involvement of the other two wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 29 AD 3655 and as such, the counter was filed to the effect that the claim petition requires to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of parties. Though the counter was filed way back on 25.01.2016, the petitioner herein had not taken steps to implead the concerned owners of the vehicle at that point of time also.

6. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent herein had filed the application at a belated stage on 03.04.2017 seeking for impleading the owners of the two wheeler. I am unable to countenance such a statement of the petitioner. In the given set of facts, the petitioner ought to have impleaded the owners of all the vehicles involved in the accident. Even otherwise, when the respondent herein had filed a counter raising an objection that the claim petition deserves to be dismissed for joint tortfeasors of the parties, the petitioner could have taken steps atleast at that stage to implead the said parties. As such, it would not be appropriate to state that the respondent herein had filed the application for impleadment at a belated stage.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner had placed strong reliance on the Judgment o