IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 532 of 2024 Date of Decision: 16.04.2026 Surinder Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus Ajay Singh Parmar & others ...Respondents. Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Munish Dhatwalia, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pritam Singh Chandel, Advocate, for respondent No.3. __________________________________________________ Romesh Verma , Judge (oral) The present petition arises out of the order as passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “MACT”), dated 23.08.2024, whereby the application filed by the present petitioner/claimant under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC for impleadment of IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., as party respondent No. 3, has been ordered to be dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner, Surinder Kumar, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for the grant of compensation. As per the averments made in the petition, it is stated that the petitioner was a pillion 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 rider on Scooty No. HP-23C-1876. The scooty was being driven by Dila Ram Parmar, and it collided with a car bearing Registration No. 01-N-299. It has been averred that Dila Ram Parmar, the driver of the scooty, suddenly changed its direction, as a result of which it collided with the car, which was being driven rashly and negligently. The offending vehicles were being driven by Dila Ram Parmar (scooty) and Sh. Ajay Sharma (car). It has further been averred in the claim petition that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of both the drivers, namely Dila Ram Parmar and Ajay Sharma. 3. In column No. 15 of the petition, it has been stated that the details of the insurance company are to be disclosed by the owner of the offending vehicles. 4. Respondents No. 1 and 2, i.e., Ajay Singh Parmar and Dila Ram Parmar, have filed their reply to the claim petition, and the averments made therein have been refuted. 5. During the pendency of the claim petition, the present petitioner/claimant filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC for impleading the insurance company as respondent No. 3. On 17.08.2024, when the matter was fixed for the presence of the parties before the learned Tribunal, conciliation 3 proceedings were conducted. On that date, respondent No. 2 in the claim petition, i.e., Dila Ram Parmar, disclosed the particulars of the insurance company in respect of Scooty bearing Registration No. HP-23C-1876 and supplied a photocopy of the insurance policy, which has been appended with the application. Therefore, the present petitioner/claimant prayed that he be permitted to implead IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., as respondent No. 3, in the claim petition. 6. Respondents No. 1 and 2 in the claim petition did not oppose the said prayer and stated that they had no objection to the present application. 7. The learned MACT, vide its order dated 23.08.2024, dismissed the application on the ground that it has been filed in collusion just to delay the proceedings of the present case, which has been pending since 2019. 8. Feeling dissatisfied, the claimant/petitioner has approached this Court assailing the impugned order dated 23.08.2024. 9. It is contended by Mr. Munish Dhatwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 is erroneous and the findings returned therein are 4 not sustainable. He submits that, being the claimant, it was never his intention to delay the proceedings, and that the petitioner seeks early disposal of his claim petition. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Pritam Singh Chandel, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, has defended the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 on the ground that, since the claim petition was filed way back in the year 2019, the application could not have been allowed at this stage. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file. 12. It is an admitted fact that the present petitioner sustained injuries in an accident that took place on 09.05.2019. It is the case of the petitioner that he sustained injuries in the said accident and he is claiming a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs along with interest @ 12% per annum. 13. It has been stated/pleaded by the claimant/ petitioner that, when conciliation proceedings were being conducted between the parties by the learned Tribunal, respondent No. 2 in the claim petition, namely Dila Ram, disclosed the particulars of the insurance company of the Scooty bearing Registration No. HP-23C-1876, and a photocopy of the said policy was provided 5 to him. It was only then that the present petitioner came to know that the scooty was insured with IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Immediately upon acquiring knowledge of this fact, the present application was filed, therefore, no delay can be attributed to the present petitioner. 14. The findings as returned by the learned MACT are not sustainable in view of the fact that the petitioner has filed the claim petition on account of the injuries sustained by him. By no stretch of imagination, it can be held or presumed that the application has been filed in collusion to delay the proceedings. The claimant would never delay the proceedings, as he is interested in receiving the amount of compensation for the injuries sustained by him. Therefore, the findings as returned by the learned MACT for rejecting the application are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 15. The provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC reads as follows: “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff 6 or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.” 16. In the present case, the accident occurred as a result of a collision between a scooty and a car. Therefore, IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. is a necessary and proper party for the adjudication of the case. Even otherwise, merely impleading IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company as a party respondent will not prove the case itself. The petitioner has to plead and prove his case beyond reasonable doubt, and the factum of the claim has to be determined after leading evidence. 17. Even otherwise, after impleading IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company, notices will be issued to it and thereafter an opportunity shall be granted to it to place on record its defence. 18. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned MACT cannot be sustained in any eventuality. Consequently, the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 is set aside and the application filed by the claimant/petitioner for 7 impleading IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company as a party respondent is allowed. 19. In view of the observation as made, the present petition is allowed and, after setting aside the impugned order, IFFCO-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., is arrayed as a party respondent. The learned Tribunal to issue notices to the newly added respondent and after taking the reply of said insurance company to proceed further in the case. The learned MACT, Shimla, H.P., is requested to expedite the case in hand since the accident in the present case occurred in 2019. 21. The parties are directed to appear before the learned MACT, Shimla, H.P. on 11.05.2026. 22. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Romesh Verma) Judge April 16, 2026 (Nisha)