Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI

NAFR

(Cause Title is taken from CIS System)

Order on Board

1. The present civil revision has been filed by the revisioner/Insurance Company under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. MACT/509/2023, whereby the application preferred by the revisioner under Order 1 Rule 9 of CPC has been rejected.

2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants have instituted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation on account of the death of late Vinay Kumar Yadav, who is alleged to have died in a motor accident dated 21.08.2023. As per the case set up in the claim petition as well as the charge-sheet filed by the police, two vehicles were allegedly involved in the said accident, namely, vehicle bearing registration No. NL-01-AG-7054 and another vehicle bearing registration No. MH-28-BB-0600. It is not in dispute that in the claim petition, the claimants have chosen to implead only the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No. NL-01-AG-7054, whereas the owner, driver and insurer of the other vehicle bearing registration No. MH-28-BB-0600 have not been impleaded as parties. The present revisioner, being the insurer of one of the vehicles, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 9 CPC before the learned Tribunal contending that in view of the involvement of two vehicles in the accident, the owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles are necessary parties and in absence of impleadment of one set of parties, the claim petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties and is liable to be dismissed. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, rejected the said application holding that non-joinder of parties, at this stage, is not fatal to the claim petition and the matter requires adjudication on merits. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contends that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is wholly illegal, arbitrary and suffers from material irregularity. It is submitted that from the charge-sheet itself, it is evident that two vehicles were involved in the accident and, therefore, the owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles are necessary and proper parties for effective adjudication of the claim petition. Learned counsel further submits that in absence of impleadment of the other offending vehicle, the learned Tribunal would not be in a position to properly determine the issue of negligence and apportion the liability between the tortfeasors, thereby resulting in prejudice to the present revisioner. It is also argued that non-joinder of such necessary parties amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice, as the concerned parties would be deprived of an opportunity of being heard. Learned counsel submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate these aspects and has erroneously rejected the application under Order 1 Rule 9 CPC. It is thus prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the claim petition be dismissed on account of non-joinder of necessary parties.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have carefully gone through the material available on record.

5. The question that arises for consideration in the present revision is whether the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is liable to be dismissed at the threshold on account of non-impleadment of the owner, driver and insurer of the other vehicle allegedly involved in the accident.

6. It is well settled that the provisions of Order 1 Rule 9 CPC provide that no suit shall be defeated by reason of mis-joinder or non- joinder of p