IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA st ON THE 21 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 MISC. APPEAL No. 728 of 2025 TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Versus SMT. LEELA ADIWASI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri B.K.Agrawal, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Arvind Mangal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

JUDGMENT This miscellaneous appeal, under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been filed against the Award dated 7/11/2024 passed by Ist Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in MACC No.403/2023.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that deceased Bhura Aadivasi lost his life in a vehicular accident which took place on 22/2/2023. The present respondents are the legal representatives of the deceased. The Claims Tribunal, by impugned Award dated 7/11/2024, has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.12,60,388/-.

3. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance company. According to the claimants, the deceased along with other injured persons was going on an Auto bearing registration No. MP07-RA-9504 to his Village Bengali Ka Pura. The driver of the Auto was driving the Auto in a rash and negligent manner. When the Auto reached near Gate No. 1 of CRPF building, then the driver of the Auto, by driving the Auto in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the Auto against a road divider, as a result auto turned upside down and deceased Bhura Aadivasi, Banti Aadivasi, Chintu Aadivasi and Rakesh Aadivasi suffered grievous injuries.

The injured persons were shifted to JA hospital where Bhura lost his life.

4. It is submitted that the claimant has not impleaded the Driver of the Auto as respondent in the claim petition, therefore, in the light of order dated 10/10/2025 passed by this Court in the case of Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Banti Adivasi and Others in CR No.81/2025, the claim petition was not maintainable. It is submitted that the aforesaid order has been passed in the case of injured Banti Adivasi, who had also suffered injury in the same accident and thus this appeal is squarely covered by the order passed in the case of Banti Adivasi (Supra).

5. Per contra, counsel for respondents has not pointed out any distinction between the case of Banti Adivasi (supra) and the case in hand.

6. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

7. This court by order dated 10/10/2025 passed in C.R. No.81/2025 in the case of Banti Adivasi (supra) has held as under:-

"This civil revision under Section 115 CPC has been filed against the order dated 7.11.2024 passed by First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in MACC No. 408/2023 by which compensation to the tune of Rs.

17,775/- has been awarded to the respondent No. 1.

2. Apparently the bone of contention of the applicant is that the Driver of the offending vehicle was not impleaded as respondent and a specific objection was taken by the applicant in his written statement. However, the Claims Tribunal has erroneously held that non-impleadment of Driver is not fatal and relied upon the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Meena Variyal and Ors. reported in (2007) 5 SCC 428.

3. Per contra, the revision is vehementaly opposed by counsel for respondents/claimants. It is submitted that coordinate Bench in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Mahadevi and Ors. reported in 2023 (1) TAC 671 (M.P.) held that Driver of the offending vehicle is not a necessary party for the reason that in the Madhya Pradesh Motors Vehicle Rules, there is no clause in the appropriate form for impleading the Driver. It is further submitted that in the light of the judgment passed by Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd v. Madhumati and Ors. reported in 2015 ACJ 1131, the revision filed by the applicant is not maintainable because the claims Tribunal has merely applied the principle of pay and recover.

4. Heard the learn