IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 3075 OF 2026 (GM-AC)

BETWEEN:

1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., 9/2, IIND FLOOR, MOTOR CLAIMS TP HUB, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS.

M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.

REPRESANTED BY ITS MANAGER …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESH KAMATH B R, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MR.SAMIULLA, S/O LATE ABDUAL JABBAR, SRI.H.J. VENKATESHA, Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, by R/AT NO.127, 2ND WARD, SHARADAVANI B MADIGONDANAHALLI ROAD, Location: HIGH RAJIVGANDHI COLONY, COURT OF KARNATAKA DODDABALLAPURA TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

2. MRS SHAHANAVAJ, W/O. MR SAMIULLA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.127, 2ND WARD, MADIGONDANAHALLI ROAD, RAJIVGANDHI COLONY, DODDABALLAPURA TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

3. GANGA ANJEENI, PROP MARUTHI ENTERPRISES, OPP VST WHITE FIELD ROAD, MAHADEVAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 048.

…RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11-09-2025 PASSED IN MVC NO. 6081/2022 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED HONBLE 1ST ADDL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACJM AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU (SCCH-11), THE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS AT ANNEXTURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The captioned petition is filed by the insurance company calling in question the correctness and legality of the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rejecting the impleading application filed in MVC No.6081/2022.

2. The facts leading to the present petition are that respondents No.1 and 2, who are the claimants before the Tribunal, have instituted a claim petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of the death of one Umar Farooq, who is stated to have succumbed to injuries sustained in a road traffic accident that occurred on 15.09.2022. In the said accident, the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle.

3. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the petitioner–insurance company filed an application under I.A. No.VI seeking impleadment of the owner of the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling. The petitioner contended in the application that the owner of the motorcycle was also responsible for the occurrence of the accident and therefore constituted a necessary and proper party to the proceedings. On this premise, the petitioner sought to implead the said rider so that the issue relating to negligence could be effectively adjudicated by the Tribunal.

4. The said application was stoutly opposed by respondents No.1 and 2/claimants by filing detailed objections. The claimants contended that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending goods vehicle, which is admittedly insured with the present petitioner–insurance company. They further contended that the driver of the offending goods vehicle has already been charge-sheeted by the jurisdictional police after investigation and therefore there was no necessity to implead the rider of the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider.

5. Having examined the rival contentions, the Tribunal rejected the application filed by the insurance company. The Tribunal proceeded on the premise that it is well within the discretion of the claimants to institute the claim petition against any one of the joint tortfeasors or against all of them. The Tribunal further noted that the deceased was only a pillion rider and that the claimants had chosen to seek compensation from the driver and insurer of the offending goods vehicle which, according to them, was responsible for the accident. On this reasoning, the Tribunal held that the rider of the motorcycle cannot be termed as a necessary party to the proceedings an