1 2026:CGHC:2057 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 810 of 2025 1 - Ravindra Singh Bedi S/o Indrajeet Singh Bedi Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Sitapur, (Adarshnagar), Thana - Sitapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No. 2) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Aruna Lakda D/o Jahar Sai Aged About 28 Years R/o Bharatpur, (Bhatthipara) Thana And Tehsil - Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Applicant) 2 - Surendra Ekka S/o Late Preet Ekka Aged About 35 Years R/o Sedam (Uraonpara), Police Station - Batauli, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh (Non-Applicant No. 1) ... Respondent(s) & WP227 No. 820 of 2025 1 - Ravindra Singh Bedi S/o Indrajeet Singh Bedi Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Sitapur, (Adarshnagar), Thana- Sitapur, District Surguja C.G. (Non-Applicant No. 2) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Jahar Sai S/o Late Bashu Sai Aged About 57 Years R/o Bharatpur, (Bhatthipara) Thana And Tehsil - Sitapur, District Surguja C.G.(Applicants) 2 - Anil Kumar S/o Jahar Sai Aged About 32 Years R/o Bharatpur, (Bhatthipara) Thana And Tehsil - Sitapur, District Surguja C.G. 2 3 - Anima Khakha D/o Jahar Sai, W/o Martin Khakha Aged About 30 Years R/o Bharatpur, (Bhatthipara) Thana And Tehsil - Sitapur, District Surguja C.G. 4 - Aruna Lakda D/o Jahar Sai Aged About 28 Years R/o Bharatpur, (Bhatthipara) Thana And Tehsil - Sitapur, District Surguja C.G. 5 - Surendra Ekka S/o Late Preet Ekka Aged About 35 Years R/o Seam (Uraonpara), Police Station - Batauli, District Surguja C.G.(Non-Applicant No. 1) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ishan Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 13/01/2026 As identical issues are involved in these petitions, they are being decided by this common order. 1. Challenge in these petitions is to an order dated 19/06/2025 passed by the 6th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District-Surguja, Chhattisgarh in MACT No.201/2024 by which the application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CrPC’) has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner is the owner of a vehicle ‘bus’ bearing registration No.CG 15-DH-0638 (for short ‘offending vehicle’). The offending vehicle met with an accident on 09/07/2024 resulting into death and injury of four persons. All of them filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’). Two of the claim applications are pending consideration before 6th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur and the other two are pending consideration before 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur. He submits that in the accident, the offending vehicle collided with stationery truck bearing registration No.CG-07- CM-5411 which was parked in the middle of the road without any parking light. The claimants in these two claim applications arrayed the driver / owner 3 (petitioner herein) as respondent. They failed to array the driver/owner and insurance company of the other vehicle i.e. truck. They are the necessary parties in order to ascertain as to whether the offending vehicle or the truck was negligent in causing the accident or it is a case of contributory negligence. He further submits that in order to implead driver, owner and insurance company of the truck, an application was filed which was rejected by the learned Claims Tribunal vide the impugned order. He submits that the other two claim applications which was pending before the 7th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal were allowed by the same Tribunal. He submits that Rule 237 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 envisages that if two or more cases are arising out of the same accident and the issue involved is similar, it should be heard by the same Tribunal. He submits that in the case in hand, two cases are being heard by one Tribunal and other two cases are being heard by another Tribunal and there may be possibility of conflict of orders. In the light of above, as in the other two cases, the driver, owner and insurance company of the truck has been arrayed as party, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Despite of service, none appeared on behalf of the claimants. From perusal of record and submissions made, it is quite vivid that the offending vehicle met with an accident and other vehicle (truck) was also involved which was parked on the road. The offending vehicle dashed the truck from behind. It also appears that in the other case, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC was allowed. In view of above, the impugned orders passed in the petitions are set aside. Both the petitions are allowed with liberty in favour of the petitioner to make an application before the concerned Tribunal for analogous hearing of all the claim applications in the light of Rule 237 of Rules of 1994. After the claim applications are clubbed together, the concerned Tribunal shall pass a fresh order on application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2026.01.16 17:14:09 +0530 4