1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1300 of 2025 1 - Branch Manager, Magma General Insurance Company Limited (Earlier Magma Hdi), Mahavar Bhavan, First Floor, In Front Of Sales Tax, Chitrakot Road, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) (Non Applicant No. 3) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Pitam Kashyap S/o Shri Chandro Kashyap Aged About 41 Years R/o Village Daamaguda, Maalagudapara, Paahurbel, Tehsil Bakavand District- Bastar (C.G.) (Applicant No. 1) 2 - Smt. Anandi Kashyap W/o Shri Pitam Kashyap Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Daamaguda, Maalagudapara, Paahurbel, Tehsil Bakavand District- Bastar (C.G.) (Applicant No. 2) 3 - Moturam Mandavi S/o Dursay Mandavi Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Mutanpaal Naakapaara , Police Station Burgum District - Bastar (C.G.) (Non Applicant Non. 1) 4 - Sonar Alias Sonaru S/o Late Lakhmu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Dilmili Patelpara District- Bastar (C.G.) (Non Applicant No. 2) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 19/12/2025 Heard on admission. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2025.12.19 17:18:57 +0530 2 28.07.2025 passed in Claim Case No. 188/2024 by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar place Jagdalpur, CG by which the application filed by the petitioner/Non-applicant No. 3 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short CPC) has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 / claimants have filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) seeking compensation on account of an accident that occurred on 17.07.2023 involving offending motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 17 KU 9695. The petitioner is the insurance company of the offending vehicle. She submits that the offending motorcycle was only insured for own damages purpose, therefore, there was no necessity to array the present petitioner as respondent in the claim application. Thus, the application was filed deleting its name which was illegally rejected. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.. 5. Perusal of the impugned order states that the grounds raised in the application could be looked into after recording of the evidence properly, therefore, at this stage the application was rejected. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. 6. In view of above, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 7. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan