1 CGHC010075092026 2026:CGHC:42660 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 238 of 2026 Arya Bhushan Singh S/o Shri Nandkishor Singh Aged About 32 Years Village Panjrao Police Station Anuav District- Kaimur (Babhua) Bihar Present Address Principal Chief Security Commissioner, Head Office Railway Protection Force Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Owner Of The Vehicle Motorcycle No. Cg-10 An-7080 ) (Owner. Non Applicant) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Pradeep Kumar Patre S/o Shri Hemant Patre, Aged About 25 Years R/o Pandatarai, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) Present Address Chandralok Colony, Raj Kishor Nagar, House Of Yashwant Sahu Sarkanda Tahsil Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Claimant) 2 - Sunil Bali S/o Shri D.S. Bali R/o Torwa Naka, Dhan Mandi, Torwa Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (Owner Of The Vehicle Motorcycle No. Cg-10-Ac-4053) Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.10.05 19:36:31 +0530 2 30/09/2026 Heard. 1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/non-applicant assailing the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kabirdham, in Claim Case No. 45/2025, whereby the application preferred by petitioner/non-applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner is the non-applicant before the learned Claims Tribunal, where the respondent No.1 Pradeep Kumar Patre is prosecuting a claim case for compensation on account of the injury sustained by him in a motor accident that has been occurred on 20.03.2024 near Shani Mandir, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur. The accident was between two motorcycles bearing registration No. CG 09 JQ 5621 and CG 10 AN 7080. The claimant has filed claim application impleading the non- applicant, who was the driver of the motorcycle bearing No. CG 10 AN 7080 and alleged that he was negligent in driving his vehicle and by his rash and negligent act, the claimant suffered injuries on his body. On 14.11.2025, the non-applicant/petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading the owner and insurance company of the motorcycle No. CG 10 AC 4053 by saying that the accident was not occurred with the motorcycle No. CG 10 AN 7080, but the offending vehicle is CG 10 AC 4053, therefore the owner and the insurance company of the said offending vehicle are the necessary parties and they should be impleaded in the claim 3 case. He would further submit that the non-applicant has also made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police for involving wrong vehicle in the accident, but no action has been taken by them. Learned claims tribunal has also rejected the application filed by the non- applicant on the ground that in the charge sheet filed by the police, his offending vehicle was CG 10 AN 7080 and since the said vehicle was not insured, the non-applicant is raising a false plea that the vehicle number CG 10 AC 4053 is involved in the accident. Therefore, to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to settle the claim properly, the owner and insurance company of the said vehicle CG 10 AC 4053 shall be made non-applicant in the said claim application, yet the learned claims tribunal rejected his application. The impugned order therefore may be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner/non-applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC may be allowed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner/non-applicant and would submit that during the investigation, the police has found the involvement of the vehicle No. CG 10 AN 7080 and the said vehicle was also found damaged in the accident after due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the driver of the said vehicle. Only to avoid the liability to pay compensation, the non-applicant is claiming that his vehicle is not involved in the accident, but the other vehicle is involved in the accident. The non-applicant had made complaint much after the accident that his vehicle is not involved in the accident. The claimant, on the basis of the charge sheet and the involvement of the vehicle 4 No. CG 10 AN 7080 filed the claim case for compensation impleading the owner of the said vehicle as non-applicant. The claimant cannot be compelled to implead other non-applicants, who are claiming that his vehicle is also involved in the accident. No case prima facie is demonstrated by the petitioner to direct the learned claims tribunal to implead the owner and insurance company of the other vehicle in the claim case filed by the claimant, therefore, the writ petition has no merit and liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, the question which arises for consideration is whether the learned Claims Tribunal has committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking impleadment of the owner and insurer of vehicle No. CG 10 AC 4053. The power under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC is discretionary and is required to be exercised where the presence of a person is necessary or proper for effectually and completely adjudicating upon the questions involved in the proceedings. A necessary party is one without whom no effective order can be passed, whereas a proper party is one whose presence is necessary for a complete and final adjudication of the controversy. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, (1992) 2 SCC 524, has explained the aforesaid distinction and held that the 5 question of impleadment is required to be decided having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. 6. In the present case, the claim petition has been instituted by respondent No.1 alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 10 AN 7080, which admittedly is the vehicle allegedly being driven by the present petitioner. It is not in dispute that during investigation the police found involvement of the said vehicle and, after investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against the driver thereof. The petitioner seeks impleadment of the owner and insurer of another vehicle bearing registration No. CG 10 AC 4053 on the assertion that the said vehicle was actually involved in the accident and that his vehicle has been falsely implicated. However, except the complaint stated to have been subsequently made by the petitioner before the Superintendent of Police, no prima facie material has been brought to the notice of this Court which would demonstrate, at this stage, the involvement of vehicle No. CG 10 AC 4053. Mere assertion of the petitioner that another vehicle was involved cannot, by itself, make the owner and insurer of such vehicle either necessary or proper parties to the claim proceedings. The charge-sheet, though not conclusive of the civil liability, is nevertheless a relevant piece of material which cannot be brushed aside at the stage of considering an application for impleadment. 7. It is also well settled that in a case of composite negligence, the claimant is entitled to proceed against either or both of the joint tort- feasors. In Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2015) 9 6 SCC 273, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the owner, driver and insurer of one of the vehicles can be sued and it is not necessary for the claimant to implead the owner, driver and insurer of both the vehicles. The claimant may implead the parties connected with either or both the vehicles. The said judgment further holds that where the other joint tort-feasor is not impleaded, the extent of composite negligence of the non-impleaded tort-feasor cannot be determined in the claim proceedings. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the claim petition necessarily becomes defective merely because the owner and insurer of vehicle No. CG 10 AC 4053 have not been impleaded cannot be accepted. 8. The plea raised by the petitioner that his vehicle was not involved in the accident and that vehicle No. CG 10 AC 4053 was the offending vehicle essentially constitutes a defence to the claim petition. Such defence can be established by the petitioner by leading appropriate evidence before the learned Claims Tribunal, including by producing the relevant documentary and oral evidence and by challenging the material collected during investigation. At this interlocutory stage, the Tribunal was not required to conduct a mini-trial for determining which of the two vehicles was actually involved in the accident. The subsequent complaint made by the petitioner, particularly when considered against the investigation already conducted and the charge-sheet filed showing involvement of vehicle No. CG 10 AN 7080, does not furnish sufficient ground for compelling the claimant to implead the owner and insurer of another vehicle. 7 9. Consequently, no jurisdictional error or perversity is found in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Interim order dated 24.02.2026 stands vacated. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved