In motor vehicle accidents, all joint tortfeasors can be sued for full compensation, but apportionment of liability requires all parties to be present in proceedings.

CAV ORDER

The petitioner/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited who is common in both the petitions is at the doors of this Court calling in question a common order dated 01-07-2024 passed by the XXIII ASCJ & ACJM, Bengaluru, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking to implead proposed respondents 3 to 6 as necessary parties to dispose of the claim petitions in M.V.C.Nos.6045 of 2022 and 6661 of 2022 on its merits, which concerns the same accident.

2. For the sake of convenience, facts obtaining in Writ Petition 24449 of 2024 are noticed.

3. Heard Sri S. Krishna Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. M. Ambika, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in both the petitions.

4. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

On 29-10-2022 when the 1^st respondent one R.M. Rahul was driving a motorcycle bearing No.KA-04-EF-2074, along with one Arshid Ajishad, a pillion rider, a car bearing No.KA-50-MA-2520, the offending vehicle, hit the motorcycle of 1^st respondent Rahul from behind. Due to the impact, both the 1^st respondent and Arshid Ajishad suffered grievous injuries and Arshid Ajishad succumbs to the injuries and dies. On the accident, a crime comes to be registered in Crime No.230 of 2022 for offences punishable under Section s 187 and 134 (a & b) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section s 304A , 337 and 279 of the IPC. Based upon the said accident, a claim petition is preferred by the 1^st respondent against the petitioner invoking Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in M.V.C.No.6045 of 2022 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘the Tribunal’ for short) seeking compensation of ₹20/- lakhs for the injuries sustained by him and huge compensation for the death of Ajishad.

5. The issue in the lis is not with regard to compensation. The Police after investigation file a charge sheet in Crime No.230 of 2022. In the charge sheet several accused are drawn. Accused No.1 was one L.Pavan Kumar, the driver of the offending car. Accused No.2 was a BBMP Officer, Accused No.3 was BBMP Contractor and Accused No.4 was the 1^st respondent - R.M.Rahul. Based upon the charge sheet so filed by the jurisdictional Police against these persons, an impleading application comes to be filed by the petitioner invoking Order 1 Rule 10 (2) r/w 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in both the claim petitions seeking to implead the owner, insurer of the motor cycle, BBMP contractor, BBMP official as proposed respondents to decide the issue of contributory negligence before the Tribunal. This, by the impugned order, comes to be rejected, the rejection of which has driven the petitioner to this court in the subject petitions.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Tribunal arbitrarily rejected the impleading application filed for the purpose of apportionment of negligence. It is his submission that apportionment has to be done by the Tribunal only based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel would submit that the jurisdictional Police after due investigation have drawn four people into the web of crime as they are necessary parties before the Tribunal to arrive at a proper conclusion qua negligence of those parties. It is the further submission that the Tribunal has erroneously interpreted the judgment of the Apex Court in rejecting the impleading application. It is contended that the Tribunal has failed to note that the claim petitions are filed under Section 166 of the Act, wherein the claimants are required to prove actionable negligence on the part of the rider or driver of the offending vehicle.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the order of the Tri