1. Insurance company's application to implead third parties in motor accident claim dismissed – petition under Article 227 against rejection. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 4153
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Romesh Verma, J
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Maisha Aggarwal – Respondent
CMPMO No.695 of 2025
Important Points
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 168 MV Act is limited to passing awards against the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle. Third parties like road authorities cannot be impleaded against the claimant's wishes as they are neither necessary nor proper parties.
Subject
Motor Vehicles Act - Claims Tribunal – Impleadment of Parties
Act Referred
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: O.1 R.10, S.151
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: S.168, S.166, S.163
Constitution of India: Art.227
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: S.168, S.166, S.163
Constitution of India: Art.227
Headnote
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 168 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10 - Constitution of India - Article 227
(B) Necessary and proper party - Dominus litis - The claimant in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act is the dominus litis and cannot be compelled to implead persons against whom no relief is sought. (Para 22) - The Tribunal under Section 168 can pass an award only against the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle involved; it has no jurisdiction to award compensation against third parties like road authorities or contractors. (Para 18) - Two tests for necessary party: (1) right to some relief against such party; (2) no effective decree can be passed in absence. (Para 19) - Scope of Article 227: High Court does not act as court of first appeal; interference only if there is grave dereliction or perversity. (Paras 24-27)
Facts of the case:
The claimant, a minor, filed two claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for the death of her mother and brother in a motor vehicle accident. The insurance company, a respondent in the petitions, applied under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead the National Highway Authority of India and its contractor as party respondents, alleging their negligence in road maintenance. The Tribunal dismissed the application. The insurance company challenged this order under Article 227.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the Tribunal's order was correct. The claimant is dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties. Moreover, under Section 168 MV Act, the Tribunal can only pass an award against the insurer, owner or driver, not against third parties like NHAI or its contractor. Therefore, the proposed respondents were neither necessary nor proper parties. The insurance company failed to show any right to relief against them or that no effective decree could be passed in their absence. The High Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction, found no perversity or illegality in the impugned order.
Issues: Whether the proposed parties (NHAI and contractor) are necessary or proper parties for adjudication of the claim petitions; whether the insurance company can compel their impleadment against the claimant's wishes; whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to pass an award against such third parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Claims Tribunal can only make an award against the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. It has no jurisdiction to entertain tortious claims against other persons. Consequently, such persons cannot be considered necessary or proper parties. The claimant, as dominus litis, has the right to choose the parties against whom to litigate, and cannot be compelled to implead others. The insurance company's application for impleadment was rightly dismissed.
Result: Petitions dismissed; pending applications disposed of; parties to bear their own costs.
(B) Necessary and proper party - Dominus litis - The claimant in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act is the dominus litis and cannot be compelled to implead persons against whom no relief is sought. (Para 22) - The Tribunal under Section 168 can pass an award only against the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle involved; it has no jurisdiction to award compensation against third parties like road authorities or contractors. (Para 18) - Two tests for necessary party: (1) right to some relief against such party; (2) no effective decree can be passed in absence. (Para 19) - Scope of Article 227: High Court does not act as court of first appeal; interference only if there is grave dereliction or perversity. (Paras 24-27)
Facts of the case:
The claimant, a minor, filed two claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for the death of her mother and brother in a motor vehicle accident. The insurance company, a respondent in the petitions, applied under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead the National Highway Authority of India and its contractor as party respondents, alleging their negligence in road maintenance. The Tribunal dismissed the application. The insurance company challenged this order under Article 227.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the Tribunal's order was correct. The claimant is dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties. Moreover, under Section 168 MV Act, the Tribunal can only pass an award against the insurer, owner or driver, not against third parties like NHAI or its contractor. Therefore, the proposed respondents were neither necessary nor proper parties. The insurance company failed to show any right to relief against them or that no effective decree could be passed in their absence. The High Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction, found no perversity or illegality in the impugned order.
Issues: Whether the proposed parties (NHAI and contractor) are necessary or proper parties for adjudication of the claim petitions; whether the insurance company can compel their impleadment against the claimant's wishes; whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to pass an award against such third parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Claims Tribunal can only make an award against the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. It has no jurisdiction to entertain tortious claims against other persons. Consequently, such persons cannot be considered necessary or proper parties. The claimant, as dominus litis, has the right to choose the parties against whom to litigate, and cannot be compelled to implead others. The insurance company's application for impleadment was rightly dismissed.
Result: Petitions dismissed; pending applications disposed of; parties to bear their own costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashwani Sharma, Ishaan Sharma
For the Respondents: Vishwas Kaushal, Vijay Sharma
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ashwani Sharma, Ishaan Sharma
For the Respondents: Vishwas Kaushal, Vijay Sharma
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought impleadment as necessary; respondent asserted dominus litis and limited tribunal jurisdiction under Section 168. (Para 11 , 12 )
3. Petitions dismissed; MACT order rejecting impleadment upheld. (Para 28 )
4. Can a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal pass an award against persons other than the insurer, owner, or driver of the vehicle involved?
No, under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the award can only be against the insurer, owner, or driver; NHAI and contractor cannot be held liable. (Para 18 )
5. Can a third party be impleaded in a claim petition against the wishes of the claimant as dominus litis?
No, unless the proposed party is a necessary or proper party whose presence is required for effective adjudication; the claimant has the right to choose defendants. (Para 19 , 22 , 23 )
6. What is the scope of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution?
It is limited to correcting grave dereliction of duty, flagrant abuse, or perverse findings; the High Court does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate evidence. (Para 27 )
Romesh Verma, Judge
The present petitions arise out of the impugned order dated 26.09.2025, as passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., whereby application filed by the present petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 of CPC for impleadment of Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit Bagla, Muhal Chakkar, P.O. Nagchala, District Mandi, H.P. through Varun Chari, presently working as Project Director and Director of KMC Construction Limited at door No.1-80/40/fSP/58-65, Shilpa homes layouot, near Meenakshi Deloitte Gachibowli, Hyderabad, as party respondents has been dismissed.
2. The facts which emerge for filing the present petitions are that Maisha Aggarwal, daughter of Prashant Aggarwal, being minor, through her grandfather, filed two claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu on accou nt of deaths of her mother Smt. Dhanwanti and her brother Sh.Chinmay Aggarwal. They died in motor vehicle accident, which took place at 6 Mile (near Pandoh), District Mandi, H.P. while they were travelling in a vehicle bearing No.HP-31B-1985, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2.
3. As per the averments as made in the claim petitions, it was averred that the accident took place on 11.08.2023, at about 7:45 PM at 6 Mile (near Pandoh) District Mandi, H.P. It has been averred in the claim petitions that on 11.08.2023, claimant/respondent No.1 along with her mother Smt. Dhanwanti and brother, Chinmay Aggarwal, was travelling from Kullu to Sunder Nagar. When they reached at 6 Mile, District Mandi, on account of heavy rain, large hanging boulders/rocks were falling from hillside. Respondent No.2 was fully aware that stones and boulders were falling and could hit the vehicle, even then he tried to cross the sliding portion of the Nationafl Highway by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In the meantime, a large hanging boulder/rock fell over the vehicle, due to which the claimant/respondent No.1 sustained minor injuries, but Smt. Dhanwanti and Chinmay Aggarwal sustained multiple grievous injuries.
4. After the accident, the mother of the claimant was seriou sly injured and she was taken to PGI Chandigarh. However, during the course of her treatment, she died on 12.08.2023 at Fortis Hospital, Chandigarh. Her brother, Chinmay Aggarwal, was declared dead on arrival by the doctors on duty. Consequently, claimant/respondent No.1 filed two different claim petitions bearing Claim Petition No.66 of 2024, titled Maisha Aggarwal vs. Prashant Aggarwal & another, and Claim Petition No.67 of 2024 titled Maisha Aggarwal vs. Prashant Aggarwal & another.
5. The claim petitions, as preferred by claimant/respondent No.1, were duly resisted by the present petitioner/insurance company. Preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, cause of action etc., were raised in the reply filed to the claim petitions. It was averred in the reply that the construction/cutting was being conducted on road and no SOP was maintained at the work site in accordance with the guidelines and SOPs laid down by the Ministry off Highways. It has been averred in the petition that the NHAI and its contractors KMC Construction Ltd. were made party to the initial FIR, which clearly indicates the negligence of the NHAI and its contractor KMC constructions Ltd. Therefore, it was prayed that the petitions be dismissed by imposing costs.
6. During the pendency of claim petitions filed by respon dent No.1, the present petitioner in both the claim petitions, filed applications under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC for impleadment of the Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit Bagla, Muhal Chakkar, P.O. Nagchala, District Mandi, H.P. through Varun Chari, presently working as Project Director as respondent No.3 in the claim petitions and Director of KMC Construction Limited at Door No.1-
