IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 09.12.2025 Pooja Devi & others --Petitioners Versus Davinder Kumar & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL.

Present:- Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate, Ms. Sakshi Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Shikha, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent no.3.

***

VIKAS BAHL.J (Oral)

1. Present revision petition has been filed by the claimants, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.12.2023, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by the respondent no.3, Insurance Company to implead the owner of Bus No. HP-64-6474, in the claim petition filed by the petitioners.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case the petitioners, who are the Legal Representatives of Arun Kumar, had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of death of said Arun Kumar which had taken place in a motor vehicular accident. It is submitted that it was the case of the petitioners/claimants that the accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving by respondent no.1-Davinder Kumar, who was the driver of the offending truck bearing no. HP-61-6028. It is submitted that in the present case, a reply was filed by the driver and the owner and the plea taken by them was that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus which was being driven by Arun Kumar, of which the present petitioners are the Legal Representatives. It is argued that similarly even the Insurance Company had taken the said plea. It is submitted that on the basis of the said plea the moot question which would arise for consideration before the Tribunal would be as to whether respondent no.1 was driving the truck in question in a rash and negligent manner and had thus caused the death of Arun Kumar or not. It is submitted that the onus of proving the said issue is on the petitioners and in case the petitioners succeed in the same, then, compensation would be awarded to the petitioners.

3. It is submitted that the Insurance Company, however, to unnecessarily delay the proceedings and to create confusion had moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading the Himachal Road Transport Corporation, (HRTC), owner of bus no. HP-64-6474 as respondent no.4, inspite of the fact that no relief was claimed by the petitioners against them. It is submitted that the Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 06.12.2023 wrongly allowed the said application and had ordered the impleadment of said HRTC as respondent no.4. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that it is a matter of settled law that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and it is for the petitioners/claimants to implead all such persons against whom the relief is claimed and the petitioners/claimants cannot be forced to litigate against the persons against whom neither any relief is sought nor is a necessary party in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is argued that in case the respondent wishes to examine anybody in its support, then it is open to the respondent to examine any witness, but the same cannot be a ground to implead the said party. It is submitted that the issues in the present case were framed on 01.03.2024 and the entire evidence has been led by all the parties concerned and the case is now fixed for arguments. Learned counsel for petitioners has further submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.02.2024 was pleased to stay the operation of the impugned order and had ordered that the proceedings would continue and in view of the same, proceedings are continuing and the case is now fixed for final arguments. It is argued that allowing of the said application would result in unnecessary delay in the proce