M/S Spectra Punj Lloyd vs Rakesh Ranjan & Ors
2009 Latest Caselaw 4969 Del

2
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +    CM(M) No.1245/2009

                               Date of Decision: 3rd December, 2009
%

      M/S SPECTRA PUNJ LLOYD           ..... Petitioner
                    Through : Mr. Kailash Sharma, Adv.

                      versus

      RAKESH RANJAN & ORS           ..... Respondents
                   Through : Ms. Rashmi Priya, Adv.
                             for R-1.
                             Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey,
                             Adv. for National Insurance
                             Co. Ltd.

CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may                 NO
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?                NO

3.      Whether the judgment should be                        NO
        reported in the Digest?

                          JUDGMENT (Oral)

CM (M) No.1245/2009 and CM No.15520/2009

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 8 th

September, 2009 passed by the learned Tribunal whereby

petitioner's application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of

Civil Procedure for impleading National Insurance Company

Limited as a respondent has been rejected.

2. The accident dated 29th December, 2000 resulted in the

injuries to Rakesh Ranjan. The claimant was travelling on his

scooter bearing No.DL-3S-R 7764 when he was hit by a

Tata 407 No.HR-38 C 1773 and Mahindra jeep No.HR-06 G

3251. The claimant filed the claim petition against the

drivers of both the vehicles. The owner of Mahindra jeep and

Insurance Company of Tata 407 were also impleaded as

respondents in the claim petition. The petitioner is the

owner of Mahindra jeep who filed the application before the

learned Tribunal to implead National Insurance Company

Limited as one of the respondent so that if any liability of the

petitioner is ultimately held, it shall be borne by National

Insurance Company Limited.

3. The learned Tribunal has dismissed the application on

the ground that in the case of composite negligence, one of

the tort-feasors can be directed to pay the money and to

recover the share of composite negligence from the other

tort-feasors.

4. The finding of the learned Tribunal relates to the

recovery of the award amount from one of the two tort-

feasors. However, relevant consideration for impleading

respondent is that whether the respondent proposed to be

added is necessary for determining the real issues between

the parties. The presence of National Insurance Company

Limited who is the insurer of Mahindra jeep is necessary for

determining the real issues between the parties but the

learned Tribunal has not considered this aspect at all.

5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the petition

is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

6. The application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10

of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed and the National

Insurance Company Limited is impleaded as one of the

respondents in the claim petition.

7. Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, Advocate accepts notice on

behalf of National Insurance Company Limited.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

case is listed before the learned Tribunal on 4 th December,

2009. Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, Advocate for National

Insurance Company Limited shall appear before the learned

Tribunal on 4th December, 2009.

9. The petitioner shall file the amended memo of parties

before the learned Tribunal and shall also furnish the

complete set of claim petition along with the copy of the

insurance policy to learned counsel for National Insurance

Company Limited.

10. CM No.15520/2009 also stands disposed of.

11. Copy of this order be given 'Dasti' to learned counsel

for the parties under signature of Court Master.

J.R. MIDHA, J DECEMBER 03, 2009 mk