10 wp 2659 of 2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2659 OF 2026 Mahalaxmi Automotive Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner versus Madhuri Dattatray Vaval and Ors. … Respondents Mr. Jagdish A. Reddy, for Petitioner. CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J. DATE : 7 SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 12 January 2026 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), whereby an application preferred by the Respondent No.1 – claimant, in MACP No.183 of 2026 seeking permission to amend the claim application so as to implead the Petitioner as party Respondent to the claim application, came to be allowed. It was, inter alia, asserted that, the Petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of the alleged accident. Finding that the Petitioner is a necessary party, the learned Member, MACT, allowed the application. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Insurance Company as well as the driver of the vehicle had raised specific grounds that the Petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle in question was SSP 1/2 2026:BHC-AS:36708 10 wp 2659 of 2026.doc required to be impleaded as a party Respondent to the claim application. In fact, the Respondent No.3 had filed an application seeking permission to amend the written statement so as to bring the said fact on record. Learned Member, MACT, by an order dated 23 August 2023 had rejected the said application as the Respondent No.1 – claimant, had opposed the said amendment. Thus, there was no propriety in impleading the Petitioner at such a belated stage. 4. Incontrovertibly, the Petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of the alleged accident. The Petitioner was thus the insured. The liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured would arise only when the insured is held liable to pay the compensation. In this view of the matter, the learned Member, MACT, cannot be said to have committed any error in allowing the impleadment of the Petitioner as a necessary party to the claim application. 5. Thus, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, this Court does not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order. 6. Writ Petition, thus, stands dismissed. ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. ) SSP 2/2 Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 07/09/2026 19:29:06