1 CGHC010303802026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1020 of 2026 Branch Manager, Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Branch Office, 3rd Floor Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Sainagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)(Non-Applicant No. 3/insurance Company Of Vehicle/tractor No. Cg11/bm-6068) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Smt. Santoshi Kewat W/o Bholaram Kewat Aged About 40 Years R/o Hindadih, Tehsil And Police Station Sipat, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Bholaram Kewat S/o Late Shri Gandarai Kewat Aged About 54 Years R/o Hindadih, Tehsil And Police Station Sipat, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Lakheshwar Kewat S/o Late Bholaram Kewat Aged About 19 Years R/o Hindadih, Tehsil And Police Station Sipat, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Durgesh Kumar Kewat S/o Late Bholaram Kewat Aged About 20 Years R/o Hindadih, Tehsil And Police Station Sipat, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Sanjay Rahi S/o Shri Dasharath Rahi Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No.- 03, Jagmahant Post- Dhurkot, Police Station And Tehsil- Navagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)(Non-Applicant No. 1/ Driver Of Vehicle/ Tractor No. Cg 11/bm-6068) 6 - Prashant Kumar Singh S/o Shri Sajeevan Singh R/o Ward No.-03, Jagmahant Post- Dhurkot, Police Station And Tehsil- Navagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Non-Applicant No. 2/ Owner Of Vehicle/ Tractor No. Cg 11/bm-6068) 2 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners (s) : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None. HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL Order on Board 12.08.2026 Heard. 1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 21.11.2025 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in Case No. 86 of 2025, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is Non-applicant No. 3 before the learned Claims Tribunal, where the present respondents No. 1 to 4 are prosecuting the claim case for compensation on account of the death of the deceased, Pavitra Kewat. It is further submitted that an accident occurred on 07.10.2024 involving one motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 11 AS 6915, one pickup vehicle bearing registration No. CG 15 ED 9606, and one tractor bearing registration No. CG 11 BM 6068. However, in the claim case, the claimants are claiming compensation only against the owner, driver, and insurance company of the tractor bearing registration No. CG 11 BM 6068. 3 Therefore, the owner, driver, and insurance company of the other vehicles are also necessary parties in the claim case and may also be impleaded as non-applicant parties. He further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the application on the ground that it is for the claimants to claim compensation against any one of the vehicles if more than one vehicle is involved in the accident. He further submits that the question of contributory negligence, which may arise in a case involving multiple vehicles, cannot be properly decided in the absence of the necessary parties. Therefore, the petitioner, Non-applicant No. 3, has filed an application for impleading the necessary parties. The impugned order suffers from perversity and, therefore, may be set aside. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 4. From a perusal of the copy of the FIR (Annexure-P/3), it transpires that the aforesaid three vehicles were involved in the accident. From a perusal of the document (Annexure-P/2) filed by the petitioner, it further transpires that the claimants are claiming compensation against the owner, driver, and insurance company of the tractor bearing No. CG 11 BM 6068. The petitioner has not annexed a copy of the claim application to examine the allegations against the owner, driver, and insurance company of the said tractor or any other vehicle regarding their involvement in the accident or their liability. 4 5. From a perusal of the impugned order, it further reveals that the learned Claims Tribunal, relying upon the judgment in Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2015) 2015 ACJ 1441 (SC), held that it is for the claimant to claim compensation from any one of the vehicles involved in the accident. The scope of Order I Rule 10 CPC is confined to impleadment of those persons whose presence before the Court is necessary for passing an effective and enforceable adjudication or whose presence is required for complete and final determination of the questions involved in the proceedings. A person cannot be added merely because he may have some connection with the transaction or because his presence may facilitate the adjudication. The Tribunal is required to examine whether, in the absence of the proposed parties, an effective award can be passed. In the present case, the claim petition is founded on the allegation that the offending tractor caused the accident and the claimants have sought compensation only from its driver, owner and insurer. Therefore, the controversy raised in the claim petition can be effectively adjudicated between the parties already on record. 6. Further, the law relating to claims arising out of composite negligence is well settled. In Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2015 ACJ 1441 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that in cases of composite negligence, the claimant has the option to sue all or any of the joint tortfeasors and recover the entire compensation from any one of them. The 5 same principle has been reiterated by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Pooja Chamecha & Others v. Manchit Rao Bhaskar & Others, (MAC No. 1232/2011, decided on 26.02.2012), and by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Sushila Bhadoriya v. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, 2004 SCC OnLine MP 360. Thus, impleadment of every vehicle involved in the accident and their respective owners, drivers and insurers is not a statutory requirement and the choice in this regard rests with the claimants. 7. It is also pertinent to note that if, during the course of trial, the respondents are able to establish that the accident occurred due to composite negligence of more than one vehicle, such a finding may be recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. However, such a possibility does not render the owner, driver and insurer of the other vehicle necessary parties to the claim petition. The rights, if any, of the respondents to seek contribution or other remedies against any other joint tortfeasor are independent of the claimants' right to choose the persons against whom they seek compensation and cannot be a ground to compel the claimants to implead additional parties. 8. In view of the settled legal position and the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the presence of the proposed owner, driver and insurer of the other vehicle is not necessary for the effective adjudication of the present claim petition. Since the claimants have exercised their statutory option 6 to proceed against the existing respondents alone, no case for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC is made out. 9. From a perusal of the entire material annexed with the writ petition and the order passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, I do not find any perversity or illegality warranting interference in the present writ petition. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh