Hdfc Ergo Generalindurance ... vs Bhanu Pratap Singh Bhadoriya
2022 Latest Caselaw 12826 MP

                               1
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                            BEFORE
         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                   ON THE 23rd OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                 MISC. PETITION No. 382 of 2020

       BETWEEN:-
       HDFC    ERGO   GENERALINDURANCE
       COMPANY LTD. THR. MANAGER LEGAL
       6TH FLOOR LEELA BUSINESS PARK
       ANDHERI KURLA ROAD ANDERI EAST
       MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA)

                                                        .....PETITIONER
       (SHRI BAL KRISHNA AGRAWAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
       PETITIONER)

       AND
1.     BHANU PRATAP SINGH BHADORIYA S/O
       SHRI PARMAL SINGH BHADORIYA 48
       ASSISTANT LINE BIRLA NAGAR (MADHYA
       PRADESH)

2.     RAJKISHORE SINGH S/O SHRI BHANU
       PRATAP SINGH BHADORIYA, AGED ABOUT
       20   YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT 48
       ASSISTANT LINE BIRLA NAGAR GWALIOR
       (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
       (SHRI SATENDRA SINGH SIKARWAR, LEARNED COUNSEL
       FOR RESPONDENT [R-2])

      This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
                                ORDER

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is filed by the petitioner assailing the interlocutory order dated 08.01.2020 passed in Claim Case No. MACC 07/2017 by which the applications filed by the

petitioner-Insurance Company under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC and under Section 165 and 169 of Motor Vehicle Act have been rejected by the learned Tribunal.

The learned Tribunal rejected the said application by holding that since the claim petition has been filed by the claimants on the concept of "no-fault liability", it is not necessary to implead the driver of the offending vehicle and the insurer as parties for proper adjudication of the matter and therefore, learned Tribunal rejected the application filed by the petitioner- Insurance Company.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the said application since

without impleading insurer and driver of the offending vehicle as respondents, the claim petition cannot be prosecuted. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decisions of Apex Court rendered in Vimlabai and others Vs. Sharif Khan and others 2010 ACJ 732 and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sunita Rathi and ors. 1998 ACJ 12.

Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the petition by submitting that a well reasoned order has been passed by the learned Tribunal which needs no interference.

Order 14 Rule 5 CPC empowers the court to amend the issues or frame additional issues at any time before passing the judgment in such terms as it thinks fit. Since such power is vested with the Court, respondent-Insurance Company approached the Court under the aforesaid provision seeking for exercise of the said powers.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the issues so framed by the petitioner in the application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. Hence, petition is allowed. Order dated 08.01.2020 passed by learned Tribunal is set-aside. Learned Tribunal is directed to rehear the parties on the application under Section 165 and 169 of Motor Vehicle Act filed by the Insurance Company and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law expeditiously.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE ojha YOGENDR A OJHA 2022.09.24 17:22:28 +05'30'