1 2026:CGHC:16730 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 421 of 2026 1 - Himanshu Agrawal S/o. Narayan Agrawal Aged About 37 Years R/o. Jai Sharda Minerals, Sai Heritage Colony, Dhimrapur Chowk Raigarh (C.G.) (Non-Applicant No. 01) (Registered Owner Of Trailer Bearing No. Cg-13-Ar- 5750) 2 - Mithlesh Kumar Paswan S/o. Sukhlesh Paswan Aged About 25 Years R/o. Permanent Resident Of Talsabariya P.S. Manjhigaon, Distt.- Gadva, Jharkhand, Present Address- Jai Sharda Mineral, Sai Heritage Colony, Dhimrapur Chowk, Raigarh (C.G.) Non- Applicant No. 02) (Occupation Wrongly Mentioned In Claim Petition As Driver) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Vrindavati Patel W/o. Lt. Bodhram Patel Aged About 55 Years Occupation- Housewife (Dependent) Resident Of Makan No. 130 No. 07, Modipara, Raigarh Tehsil And District Raigrh (C.G.) Present Address- Madanpur Kharsia District- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Nayan Patel S/o. Lt. Bodhram Patel Aged About 25 Years Occupation- Student Resident Of Makan No. 130 No. 07, Modipara, Raigarh Tehsil And District Raigrh (C.G.) Present Address- Madanpur Kharsia District- Raigarh (C.G.) SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.04.15 12:07:17 +0530 2 3 - Minor Neha Patel D/o. Lt. Kamal Patel Through- Natural Guardian, Occupation- Student, (Being Minor Represented Through Natural Guarding Mother Respondent No. 01) Resident Of Makan No. 130 No. 07, Modipara, Raigarh Tehsil And District Raigrh (C.G.) Present Address- Madanpur Kharsia District- Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Minor Navya Patel D/o. Lt. Kamal Patel Aged About 13 Years Through Natural Guardian, Occuptaion- Student, (Being Minor Represented Through Natural Guarding Mother Respondent No. 01) Resident Of Makan No. 130 No. 07, Modipara, Raigarh Tehsil And District Raigrh (C.G.) Present Address- Madanpur Kharsia District- Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Minor Naitik Patel S/o. Lt. Kamal Aged About 7 Years Through- Natural Guardian, Occuptaion- Student, (Being Minor Represented Through Natural Guarding Mother Respondent No. 01) Resident Of Makan No. 130 No. 07, Modipara, Raigarh Tehsil And District Raigrh (C.G.) Present Address- Madanpur Kharsia District- Raigarh (C.G.) 6 - Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Near Kewdabadi Bus Stand, Raigarh, Tehsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Thakur, Advocate alongwith Mr. Ajay Kumar Sahu, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 10/04/2026 1. Heard. 3 2. Present is a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 11.02.2026 passed by learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh in Civil Case No. M.A.C.T./88/2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading Pardesi Sahu alias Prem as the non-applicant in the claim application, has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are non-applicants No. 1 & 2 in the claim application filed before the learned Claims Tribunal. The petitioner No.1 is the owner of the subject vehicle trailer bearing registration No. CG-13 AR-5750, however, the petitioner No.2, Mithlesh Kumar Paswan is not the driver of the vehicle but he was only a Munshi of the petitioner No.1. He would further submit that the actual driver of the said vehicle, at the time of accident, was Pardesi Sahu alias Prem but he was not arrayed as a non- applicant in the claim application. He would further submit that in absence of the driver of the vehicle, who was driving the vehicle at the time of alleged incident, no effective adjudication could be possible, therefore, they filed their application for impleading the actual driver in the proceeding. He would further submit that the police has not properly investigated the offence and has filed charge-sheet against both these petitioners, however, when they came to know, they challenged the police proceedings also, he would refer to the document Annexure – P/4 which is the statement made by a witness that Pardesi Sahu alias Prem was the driver of the offending vehicle. The actual driver of the vehicle is proper and necessary party in the claim case pending before the learned Claims Tribunal. Yet, the learned trial Court 4 has rejected the application on the ground that in the criminal record of the offence produced in support of the claim application, the petitioner No.2 is shown to be the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident and at the stage of applicant's witness, the non-applicant cannot be impleaded in the claim application. He would further submit that the impleadment of the proposed non-applicant is necessary as he is the necessary party to the subject claim application. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 5. The petitioner could not dispute that the charge sheet was filed against the petitioners before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class for the offence under Section 105 of BNS and 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In support of the claim application, the claimants have filed the relevant documents obtained from the said record of the criminal case in which the petitioner No.2 is shown to be the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Though, in the statement of Turendra Singh Rajput made before the police under Section 180 of BNSS and during the investigation of said offence, it discloses that on the date of accident, the driver Pardesi Sahu alias Prem took the offending vehicle from Jai Maa Sharda Minerals, Kudeli and subsequently, he came to know that vehicle met with an accident, however, it does not disclose that who was driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time of accident and what transpired on the way. When specific query has been raised from the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to what is the result of challenge to the criminal proceeding, it would fairly submit that it was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 5 6. True, it is that the proposed non-applicant was the driver of the offending vehicle but the core question would be who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. From perusal of the order impugned as well as the pleadings made in the claim application, it reflected that the petitioner No.2 was the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time and on that basis, they impleaded the petitioner No.2 as the non-applicant No.2 in the claim application. It is for the petitioners to establish that petitioner No.2 was not driving the vehicle and the police investigation is tainted one, however, at present, there is no satisfactory material produced before this Court that at the relevant point of time, the proposed non-applicant Pardesi Sahu alias Prem was driving the vehicle. 7. From perusal of the entire material annexed with the petition, this Court does not find any infirmity or perversity in the order impugned rejecting the application of the petitioners filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit