1 2025:CGHC:40679 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 789 of 2025 1. Omprakash Vishwakarma S/o Hirau Vishwakarma Aged About 22 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Loharpara, Khairi, P.S. Bhatapara, Rural, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G. 2. Hirau Vishwakarma S/o Panchram Vishwakarma, aged about 70 years, R/o Ward No. 10, Loharpara, Khairi, P.S. Bhatapara, Rural, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Dukalha Ram Nishad S/o Shri Bulwa Nishad Aged About 60 Years R/o Posari, Mohrenga, Bemetara C.G. Permanent R/o Near Santoshi Mandir, Rameshwar Narg, Bhanpuri, Tahsil And District Raipur C.G. 2. Uday Kenvat S/o Shri Dukalha Ram Nishad Aged About 25 Years R/o Posari, Mohrenga, Bemetara C.G. Permanent R/o Near Santoshi Mandir, Rameshwar Narg, Bhanpuri, Tahsil And District Raipur C.G. 3. Ku. Samta Kenvat D/o Shri Dukalha Ram Nishad Aged About 20 Years R/o Posari, Mohrenga, Bemetara C.G. Permanent R/o Near Santoshi Mandir, Rameshwar Narg, Bhanpuri, Tahsil And District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13. 08.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. The petitioners have assailed the order passed by the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur, in Claim Case No. 847 of 2024 dated 09.07.2025, whereby an application moved by the petitioners/owner and driver of the vehicle under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC has been rejected. 3. The facts of the present case are that the respondents/claimants filed a SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.08.19 10:21:05 +0530 2 claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, inter alia, on the ground that on 12.02.2024, petitioner No. 1, while driving his motorcycle bearing registration No. JH 10 X 1860 rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 25 G 6951, in which the deceased Smt. Lagan Bai Kenvat was a pillion rider. Smt. Lagan Bai Kenvat sustained grievous injuries and was taken to the hospital, where she was declared dead. The claimants specifically stated that petitioner No. 1 was the driver of the offending vehicle and petitioner No. 2 was the owner of the vehicle, and in the absence of knowledge, the Insurance Company has not been arrayed as a party. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 45,00,000/- on account of the death of Smt. Lagan Bai Kenvat. Claimant No. 1 is the husband of the deceased, whereas claimants No. 2 and 3 are her issues. 4. During the pendency of the claim case, the petitioners moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC inter alia on the ground that the motorcycle used by the deceased was insured with Tata AIG General Company Ltd, Raipur, and therefore, the said insurance company is a necessary party. 5. The learned claims tribunal held that the charge-sheet has been filed against the drivers of both motorbikes. It is further held that the claimants cannot be compelled to implead the insurance company of the motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 25 G 6951 and accordingly, rejected the application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Insurance company of the motorbike bearing registration No. CG 25 G 6951 is a necessary party as it was insured with Tata AIG General Insurance Company; therefore, the claimants ought to have impleaded the said 3 Insurance company as a party respondent. He would pray to quash the order passed by the learned claims tribunal and to allow this petition. 7. Heard. 8. The offending motorbike, which was being driven by petitioner No. 1, dashed into the motorbike in which the deceased was a pillion rider. The petitioners have not stated that their motorbike was insured; rather, they have pleaded that the motorbike in which the deceased was traveling was insured with the Insurance company. Thus, the petitioners are trying to shift their liability on the Insurance company of the motorbike in which the deceased was traveling. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a pillion rider and thus it is a case of composite negligence. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the issue of composite negligence in the matter of T. O. Anthony v. Karvarnan and others, (2008) 3 SCC 748, in para 6 held as under:- “6. 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a case, each wrong doer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong-doer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong-doer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence of the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence.” 4 10. It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the wrongdoers would be jointly and severally liable to the claimants for payment of damages, and the claimants would be at liberty to proceed against all or any of them. 11. It appears that the offending vehicle was not insured with any Insurance company, and to avoid their liability, the petitioners moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead the insurance company of the motorbike bearing registration No. CG 25 G 6951. It is the choice of the claimants to claim compensation from any wrongdoers. 12. Considering the above-discussed facts, the reasons assigned by the learned tribunal, and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned. 13. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant