( 1 ) FA-433-2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 433 OF 2014 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10117 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10118 OF 2010 Maheboobkhan s/o. Rashidkhan Pathan (Since deceased) through his L.R.s. 1] Fatimabi Meheboobkhan Pathan Age: 64 years, Occu: Household. 2] Mushtaqkhan Meheboobkhan Pathan Age: 41 years, Occu: Business, House No.412, In front of K.E.M. Hospital, Near Anglo Urdu High School, Davi-Galli, Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3] Nahid Mohmmad Kasim Shaikh Age: 39 years, Occu: Household, R/o. Vasant Tekdi, Aurangabad Road, Ahmednagar. 4] Asama Mohammed Ashraf Shaikh Age: 37 years, Occu: Household, R/o. Flat No.503 Gul Hasan Complex, Unique Society, Pipe Road, Kurla (West), Mumbai. 5] Muddasar Khan Meheboobkhan Pathan Age: 34 years, Occu: Nil. R/o. Flat No.601, Bhimi Mohan Ethape 2025:BHC-AUG:29268 ( 2 ) FA-433-2014 Shrishti Kachore Patri Bridge, Kalyan (East), Mumbai. 6] Fatimkhan Maheboobkhan Pathan, Age: 32 years, Occu: Nil. R/o. Flat No.601, Bhimi Mohan Shrishti Kachore Patri Bridge, Kalyan (East), Mumbai. ...APPELLANTS V E R S U S 1] Gautam s/o. Bhikan Lokhande, Age: 37 years, Occu: Labour, R/o. Kankadwati Nagar, in Tenabai Chava Room Sakhar Karkhana Kannad, Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad. (Orig. Claimant) 2] Jabbar S/o. Chennu Patel Age: Major, Occu: Truck Owner, R/o. At and post tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3] Respondent No.3 dismissed as per Court’s order dtd.18.01.2013. 4] The United India Insurance Company Ltd. First Floor, Hotel Karam, Infront of Bus stand, Sangamner, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS ….. Mr. R. L. Kute, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. P. F. Patni, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. Mr. Atul B. Gatne, Advocate for Respondent No.4 in CA/10118/2010. Ethape ( 3 ) FA-433-2014 CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. RESERVED ON : 24th SEPTEMBER 2025. PRONOUNCED ON : 15th OCTOBER 2025. ORDER :- CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10118 OF 2010 1. This application is for allowing the applicant to add Insurance Company as Respondent No.4 to the First Appeal. 2. Considering the reasons stated in the application, this civil application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (A). 3. The applicant to carry out necessary amendment in the appeal as well as connected civil applications. FIRST APPEAL 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. 2. This appeal is filed by original respondent No.3, owner of the vehicle, challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Ethape ( 4 ) FA-433-2014 Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad, dated 06- 06-2007, passed in MACP No.620 of 2000, wherein the present appellant and original opponent No. 2, i.e. driver of the vehicle, are directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,35,000/- inclusive amount of “no fault liability” with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition. 3. The respondent No. 1 is the claimant who had filed the claim petition seeking compensation as he received an injury and had suffered a disability. Respondent No.2 is the original respondent No.1. Respondent No. 3 is the driver of the vehicle owned by the present appellant. In the first appeal, now the Insurance Company is also added as a party Respondent No.4. The Appeal is dismissed against the respondent No. 3. 4. The facts, in short, are that the injured Gautam Lokhande was travelling in truck bearing No. MH-17-A-5105 on 11-05-1999, carrying sugarcane from village Chapaner to Sangamner for its supply. The Ethape ( 5 ) FA-433-2014 driver of another vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner and could not control his vehicle. The truck, therefore, turned turtle. As a result, the hands of the claimant got entangled in the steering rod and he became unconscious. He was shifted to the hospital. In the accident, he suffered two fracture injuries to both his hands. A crime was registered with the police station against original opponent No.2 i.e. present respondent 3. 5. The claimant, therefore, approached the Claims Tribunal by filing Motor Accident Claims Petition. His case is that in the accident, he received an injury and suffered 32% permanent disability. The opponent No.3 was the owner of the vehicle. The vehicle was, thereafter, purchased by original opponent No. 1, and therefore, he has joined them as a party. It is the defence of the respondent No. 3 that he sold the vehicle prior to the date of accident. The opponent No. 2 was not his employee. The opponent No. 3 resisted the claim and denied the allegations against him. Ethape ( 6 ) FA-433-2014 6. On considering the evidence and trial, the learned Tribunal held that the original opponent No.1 was not the owner on the date of accident, as he purchased the vehicle after date of accident. On the date of accident, it was opponent No.3 who was the owner and opponent No. 2 was driving the vehicle as his driver, and thus fastened the liability upon original opponent Nos. 2 and 3. The respondent Nos. 3 has thus filed appeal before this Court. 7. After filing of the appeal, the appellant found that the vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited and he filed an application for joining the said company as a respondent. 8. After joining of the Insurance Company as a party, it is also one of the grounds taken by the appellant now that since the vehicle was insured with opponent Insurance Company, the liability would be of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Gatne for the Respondent Insurance Company, however, vehemently opposes the claim. His main ground is that in the MACP, the company was not a party. It was the duty of the Ethape ( 7 ) FA-433-2014 owner of the vehicle to point it out to the Court that the vehicle was insured and Insurance Company was a necessary party. The Insurance Company could not get a chance to defend the claim petition and put- forth its case. The Insurance Company, therefore, cannot be fastened with the liability. In the alternative, he submits that the Insurance Company needs to be given an opportunity to defend the claim and therefore, this is a fit case to remand the matter for fresh trial. The facts and the findings by the MACP are not seriously in dispute. The question is mainly as to who should bear the burden of the interest and the claim amount. 10. Learned Advocate Mr. Patni appearing for respondent No.1, original claimant, submits that he is not concerned with the question of liability as he is the claimant and he should get the amount of compensation alongwith interest. Because of the dispute between the Insurance Company and the appellant, it is the claimant who is suffering and is not getting any amount towards compensation though there is already a judgment and award in his favour. Ethape ( 8 ) FA-433-2014 11. It is admitted fact that the Insurance Company was not a party throughout the trial. The appeal was filed in the year 2010 and it is thereafter application came to be filed by the appellant for adding the Insurance Company as a party. The said application was initially rejected in 2014 itself. However, thereafter the review application was filed and it is on 09-03-2022, that the review application came to be allowed and the Insurance Company came to be added as a party. It is clearly seen that though the vehicle was insured, the Insurance Company was not added as a party. This is clearly due to the negligence of the appellant. It is the justification of the appellant that a loan was taken for purchase of the vehicle, the loan was advanced by the bank, and it is the bank, who paid the premium of the insurance and got the vehicle insured. This fact was not within the knowledge of the appellant. During the execution proceedings, when the appellant took search of the loan file, he found that the vehicle was insured and it is thereafter, he filed an application for adding Insurance Company as a party. The Insurance Company though was a necessary party, for want of knowledge, it could Ethape ( 9 ) FA-433-2014 not be pointed out in the trial Court. 12. On the contrary, it is the defence of the Insurance Company, as already stated, that even if the liability is fastened upon the Insurance Company, Insurance Company would not be liable to pay interest for the period for which it was not a party. 13. Once the vehicle was insured, it was necessary for the Insurance Company to accept the liability. There is no dispute that the vehicle was insured on the date of accident. It was equally necessary for the appellant to be vigilant and to bring this fact to the notice of the Court that the vehicle was insured on the date of accident so that the Insurance Company could have contested the claim by participating in the proceedings. It is thus clear that it is the negligence on the part of the owner in not bringing the Insurance Company on record. 14. At the same time, claimant cannot be faulted with for not making Insurance Company as a party. It is not the case that the claimant was made aware of the fact of insurance of the vehicle. The claimant, therefore, cannot be deprived of the compensation. Ethape ( 10 ) FA-433-2014 15. On going through the judgment and the evidence, it is clearly established that the accident took place because original opponent No. 2 was negligent in driving the vehicle. The learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated original opponent No.1 as he was not the owner of the vehicle on the date of accident. It is the opponent No.3 who was the owner of the vehicle. This Court thus finds that there is no illegality or perversity in the judgment passed by the learned Member of the Tribunal. Here the question is only about the liability of payment of compensation and the amount of interest. The Court has awarded the interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum. 16. This Court finds that till the date of joining of the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company was also not aware of the proceedings. Thus, it was deprived of the opportunity to defend the proceedings. No doubt about this fact. In normal course, this Court would have remanded the claim for fresh trial to the trial Court. This Court, however, finds that the accident has taken place long back. It would not be in the interest of justice now to remit the matter back for Ethape ( 11 ) FA-433-2014 fresh trial as it would unnecessarily deprive the claimant, who has already succeeded in the trial, of compensation for a further period. 17. Considering all these facts, I pass the following order: ORDER (i) First Appeal stands rejected. (ii) The opponent No.4, Insurance Company shall pay the compensation to the claimant. (iii) The 50 % of the liability of the interest amount is to be borne by the appellant himself and 50 % by the Insurance Company. The compensation amount and the interest part of each of the parties be deposited in the office of this Court within eight weeks from today. Amount to carry interest @ 6% p.a. (iv) In case there is default on the part of any of the parties, the liability for the interest shall be shifted totally on such defaulting party. Ethape ( 12 ) FA-433-2014 (v) After the amount is deposited, the orig. claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount from the office of this Court without requiring any formal application. (vi) With this, first appeal stands disposed off. (vii) In view of disposal of First Appeal, pending Civil Applications, if any, do not survive and same stand disposed off. [KISHORE C. SANT, J.] Ethape