The court emphasized the necessity of due diligence in identifying parties for impleadment, particularly when information is available during earlier proceedings.

ORDER

IA No.03/2023 in MACApp. No.56 of 2023

Heard Mr. Samrat Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel for the applicant-Insurance Company, Mr. A.K. Pal, learned counsel for the claimants and Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the respondent No.4-owner and respondent No.5-driver of the offending vehicle on the prayer for impleadment made through IA No.03/2023. A motor vehicle accident occurred on 16.04.2021 at about 13.45 hours near S.T. Paul's School between the deceased Pallab Banerjee, who was restarting the auto and the motor bike No.TR-01-X-8678. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.5 has awarded a compensation of Rs.22,65,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 10.11.2021 till its realization in full to be distributed amongst the claimant No.1-widow of the deceased and the claimant No.2-minor son of the deceased and claimant No.3-mother of the deceased in the ratio of 50%, 25% and 25% respectively to be paid by the insurance company on the strength of the finding on issue No.2 that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. O.P. No.2-son of O.P. No.1-owner of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence and the bike was being driven by him only.

2. Prayer for impleadment of one Prasanta Das has been made by the insurance company through the instant interlocutory application on the basis of the charge sheet [Exhibit-5 & 6] adduced by the claimants. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the insurance company that the declaration of the owner during course of investigation indicates that the vehicle was driven by one Prasanta Das. The police, after investigation, had charge sheeted the owner of the vehicle Parimal Das, who was O.P. No.1 in the claim petition and Prasanta Das, son of Sri Tapan Das of Gajaria, P.S.- A.D. Nagar, West Tripura, as accused. Sumit Das, the son of the owner of the offending vehicle Parimal Das, was impleaded as O.P. No.2 in the claim petition.

3. Learned senior counsel for the applicant-insurance company, further submits that Prasanta Das is a necessary party whose presence is required for proper adjudication of the dispute. This Court, at the appellate stage, is empowered to exercise the same powers as are available to the original Court in view of Section 107(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The prayer for impleadment is being made on the strength of a charge sheet [Exhibit-5 & 6] adduced by the claimants during trial. He also submits that impleadment of Prasanta Das would have a definite bearing on the outcome of the appeal and cross objection since the real driver of the vehicle, in the opinion of the insurance company is Prasanta Das, who was not having a valid driving licence. In that case, the liability would turn upon the owner of the offending vehicle instead of the insurance company. That would make a huge difference to the determination of the real controversy between the parties and save the insurance company from unnecessary liability.

4. Mr. A.K. Pal, learned counsel for the claimants, has strongly opposed the prayer. It is also argued by learned counsel for the claimants that no such plea was raised before the learned Tribunal during course of the MAC case even though the insurance company was fully cognizant of the contents of the charge sheet adduced by the claimants as Exhibit-5 & 6. As such, recourse to adducing additional evidence or impleadment by way of an amendment at the appellate stage should not be allowed. It is further submitted that the findings of the learned Tribunal are already in appeal and as such, all the parties have the liberty to canvass their respective case in support or in traverse to the findings of the learned Tribunal. Therefore, prayer for impleadment should not be allowed.

5. It is contended by Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle, that the declaration by the owner was to the effect that his son was driving th