1 2026:CGHC:17730 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 102 of 2026 1 - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Plot No. 2/7 2nd Floor, In Front Of Gandhi Chowk, Akashganga, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Sunita Yadav W/o Late Vinay Kumar Yadav Aged About 45 Years R/o Bajrang Para, Bhilai -03, District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Aniket Kumar Yadav S/o Late Vinay Kumar Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Bajrang Para, Bhilai -03, District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - Ku. Chhaya Yadav D/o Late Vinay Kumar Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o Bajrang Para, Bhilai -03, District- Durg (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Kalawati Devi Yadav W/o Late Sakal Dev Yadav Aged About 76 Years R/o Bajrang Para, Bhilai -03, District- Durg (C.G.) 5 - Pintu Kumar Singh S/o Mangal Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o M/5 Service Station , N.H. 06, Chokranala, Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Director, O.T.S. Ltd, 18 A Park Street 6th Floor, Kolkata (W.B.) Presently Situated At S.K. Garage Nst Colony, Kohima Campus District- Kohima, Nagaland ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Rahore, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 20/04/2026 1. The present civil revision has been filed by the revisioner/Insurance Company under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. MACT/509/2023, whereby the application preferred by the revisioner under Order 1 Rule 9 of CPC has been rejected. 2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants have instituted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the learned Tribunal seeking compensation on account of the death of late Vinay Kumar Yadav, who is alleged to have died in a motor accident dated 21.08.2023. As per the case set up in the claim petition as well as the charge-sheet filed by the police, two vehicles were allegedly involved in the said accident, namely, vehicle bearing registration No. NL-01-AG-7054 and another vehicle bearing registration No. MH-28-BB-0600. It is not in dispute that in the claim petition, the claimants have chosen to implead only the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No. NL-01-AG-7054, whereas the owner, driver and insurer of the other vehicle bearing registration No. MH-28-BB- 3 0600 have not been impleaded as parties. The present revisioner, being the insurer of one of the vehicles, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 9 CPC before the learned Tribunal contending that in view of the involvement of two vehicles in the accident, the owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles are necessary parties and in absence of impleadment of one set of parties, the claim petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties and is liable to be dismissed. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, rejected the said application holding that non-joinder of parties, at this stage, is not fatal to the claim petition and the matter requires adjudication on merits. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contends that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is wholly illegal, arbitrary and suffers from material irregularity. It is submitted that from the charge-sheet itself, it is evident that two vehicles were involved in the accident and, therefore, the owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles are necessary and proper parties for effective adjudication of the claim petition. Learned counsel further submits that in absence of impleadment of the other offending vehicle, the learned Tribunal would not be in a position to properly determine the issue of negligence and apportion the liability between the tortfeasors, thereby resulting in prejudice to the present revisioner. It is also argued that non-joinder of such 4 necessary parties amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice, as the concerned parties would be deprived of an opportunity of being heard. Learned counsel submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate these aspects and has erroneously rejected the application under Order 1 Rule 9 CPC. It is thus prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the claim petition be dismissed on account of non-joinder of necessary parties. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have carefully gone through the material available on record. 5. The question that arises for consideration in the present revision is whether the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is liable to be dismissed at the threshold on account of non-impleadment of the owner, driver and insurer of the other vehicle allegedly involved in the accident. 6. It is well settled that the provisions of Order 1 Rule 9 CPC provide that no suit shall be defeated by reason of mis-joinder or non- joinder of parties, save and except in the case of non-joinder of necessary parties. Thus, the determination as to whether a party is necessary or proper depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the context of motor accident claim cases, it is equally settled that the claimants, being dominus litis, have the right to choose the parties against whom they seek compensation. 5 They cannot be compelled to implead all possible tortfeasors against whom a claim may lie. In the present case, though it is the contention of the revisioner that two vehicles were involved in the accident and both ought to have been impleaded, such contention, by itself, cannot be a ground to non-suit the claimants at the threshold. 7. Though learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that both vehicles are required to be arrayed as parties, however, it is the bounty and prerogative of the concerned claimants to array such parties as they deem fit for the purpose of seeking compensation. The Insurance Company cannot compel or force the claimants to implead the owner, driver and insurer of the other vehicle. The apprehension raised by the applicant regarding proper adjudication of liability can be adequately addressed during the course of trial. The learned Tribunal is competent to examine the evidence led by the parties and determine the issue of negligence and liability accordingly. 8. It is also pertinent to note that the learned Tribunal is vested with sufficient powers to ensure complete and effective adjudication. In the event, evidence comes on record indicating involvement of other parties whose presence is necessary, the learned Tribunal is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for impleadment of such parties at a later stage in accordance with law. Therefore, the rejection of the application under Order 1 Rule 9 CPC at the 6 preliminary stage does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. The learned Tribunal has rightly observed that non- joinder of parties, in the facts of the present case, is not fatal to the proceedings at this stage and the claim petition cannot be dismissed on this ground alone. This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, is required to examine whether there is any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. Upon careful consideration, no such error is found in the order passed by the learned Tribunal. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.) does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the present civil revision being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. 10. It is, however, clarified that the learned Tribunal shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders at a later stage, if it is found necessary to implead any party on the basis of evidence adduced before it. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge