Dismissed¶44

Rofiqul Islam v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Gauhati HC8 Mar 2026CRP(IO)/418/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against impleadment order of MACT Goalpara; Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC; Section 166(i) M.V. Act 1988 claim petitions MAC Case Nos. 241/2017, 242/2017, 243/2017; dominus litis; composite negligence; joint tortfeasors; inter se liability; Khenyei v. New India Assurance (2015) 9 SCC 273 paragraph 22.3; National Insurance Co. Ltd; Winger AS-16-C-2290; Truck AS-01-EC-1831; Dudhnoi P.S. Case No. 4/2015 Sections 279/338/304A/427 IPC; charge-sheet; abuse of process; costs Rs. 2,000/- Gauhati High Court Legal Services Authority; CRP(IO) 378/416/418 of 2024 dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioners; all three revision petitions dismissed, with costs of Rs. 2,000/- each imposed on each petitioner, to be deposited before the Gauhati High Court Legal Services Authority within two weeks ¶44

Rofiqul Islam Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. — Motor Accident Claims | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the common order dated 15.06.2024 of the learned Member, MACT Goalpara, allowing impleadment of the owner, driver and insurer of the Winger vehicle as opposite parties in MAC Case Nos. 241/2017, 242/2017 and 243/2017, suffers from illegality or material irregularity requiring interference in these revision petitions +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

Since the involvement of the Winger vehicle in the accident is writ large on the face of the record (charge-sheet submitted against its driver; the Winger parties already arrayed and contesting in MAC Case Nos. 14/2016 and 27/2016), the impugned order suffers from no illegality or infirmity requiring interference of this Court

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Because the Winger's involvement is not in dispute, a charge-sheet stands submitted against its driver, and this was brought to the Tribunal's notice through the written statement and the respondent's application, it is incumbent upon the learned Tribunal to invoke its powers under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC

¶43

Key takeaways

The ratio of Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 273, would not advance the petitioners' argument: per paragraph 22.3 of that decision, where all joint tortfeasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the Court/Tribunal to determine the inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers; accordingly the petitions find no meritratio¶44
Filing the present revision petitions against the impugned order appears to be an abuse of the process of the Court which has to be discouraged; costs of Rs. 2,000/- each are imposed upon each petitioner, to be deposited before the Gauhati High Court Legal Services Authority within two weeksratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Robin Phukan, J.), order dated 09.03.2026: Three connected revision petitions (CRP(IO) Nos. 378, 416 and 418 of 2024) by persons injured in the 03.01.2015 Winger-Truck collision challenged the common order dated 15.06.2024 of the Member, MACT Goalpara, in MAC Case Nos. 241/2017, 242/2017 and 243/2017, whereby the insurer's application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC to implead the owner, driver and insurer of the Winger (AS-16-C-2290) was allowed. Holding that the Winger's involvement was writ large - a charge-sheet stood submitted against its driver under Sections 279/338/304A/427 IPC (Dudhnoi P.S. Case No. 4/2015) and those parties were already arrayed and contesting in MAC Case Nos. 14/2016 and 27/2016 - the Court found no illegality in the impugned order and held the Tribunal duty-bound to invoke Order 1 Rule 10(2) with Section 151 CPC. Paragraph 22.3 of Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2015) 9 SCC 273, permitting determination of inter se composite negligence once all joint tortfeasors are impleaded, was held not to advance the petitioners' dominus litis / composite-negligence argument. All three revisions were dismissed as an apparent abuse of the process of the Court, with costs of Rs. 2,000/- each imposed on each petitioner for deposit with the Gauhati High Court Legal Services Authority within two weeks.

Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010199582024

2026:GAU-AS:3428

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : CRP(IO)/378/2024

¶6

IDRISH ALI @ IDRISH ALI AHMED S/O- RAHMATULLA SHEIKH, R/O- GORUCHOTKA, P.O. AND P.S. DHUPDHARA, DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI-781005. (REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER).

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MONDAL,

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : MS. U ROY, MRS. S ROY

¶11

Linked Case : CRP(IO)/418/2024

¶12

ROFIQUL ISLAM S/O- ABDUL ROSID R/O- THEPKAI PAHARTOLI P.O. JOYPUR P.S. BAGUAN DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

Page No.# 2/7

¶15

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH GHY-781005. (REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER).

¶16

-----------Advocate for : MR D MONDAL Advocate for : MS. U ROY appearing for NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

¶17

Linked Case : CRP(IO)/416/2024

¶18

HABIBOR RAHMAN AND ANR S/O- AHAMMAD ALI R/O- THEPKAI PAHARTOLI P.O. JOYPUR P.S. BAGUAN DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM

¶19

VERSUS

¶20

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-781005. (REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER).

¶21

-----------Advocate for : MR D MONDAL Advocate for : MRS. S ROY appearing for NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED

¶22

BEFORE

¶23

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Date : 09.03.2026

¶26

Heard Mr. D. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶27

Page No.# 3/7

¶28

2. By this common order, three connected revisions petitions, being CRP(IO)/378/2024, CRP(IO)/416/2024 and CRP(IO)/418/2024 are being disposed of as common question of law is involved in these three petitions and the same are directed against the common order dated 15.06.2024, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara, in MAC Case No. 241/2017, MAC Case No. 242/2017 and MAC Case No. 243/2017.

¶29

3. Mr. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 03.01.2015, at about 6 p.m., while the petitioners of all the connected three petitions were travelling from Rangjang, Meghalaya towards Dudhnoi by a Winger vehicle at normal speed, the said vehicle dashed against a Truck, bearing Registration No. AS-01-EC-1831 from behind at Shalikapara, which was being parked in the middle of the National Highway, without any parking or hazard light. Mr. Mondal also submits that as it was a winter evening, the road was also not visible due to fog and the accident took place due to negligent parking of the Truck by its driver, and in the said accident, the petitioner in CRP(IO) No. 378/2025, namely, Idrish Ali @ Idrish Ali Ahmed; the petitioners in CRP(IO) No. 416/2024, namely, Habibor Rahman and Gol Bhanu; and the petitioner in CRP(IO) No. 418/2024, namely, Rofiqul Islam sustained injuries on their person and they took treatment at Goalpara Civil Hospital and thereafter, at Gauhati Medical College and other nursing home. Mr. Mondal further submits that thereafter, the petitioners had filed claim petitions under Section 166(i) of the M.V. Act, 1988, which were registered as MAC Case No. 241/2017, MAC Case No. 242/2017 and MAC Case No. 243/2017, before the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara (‘Tribunal’, for short); and that in the said clam petitions, the petitioners herein led evidence and after closing of the evidence, the cases were fixed for argument and thereafter, the National

¶30

Page No.# 4/7

¶31

Insurance Company Limited/respondent herein i.e. the insurer of the offending Truck, bearing Registration No. AS-01-EC-1831, had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2), read with Section 151 of the CPC before the learned Tribunal for adding the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle, bearing Registration No. AS-16-C-2290 (Winger) as opposite parties for the sake of just decision of the cases. Mr. Mondal submits that thereafter, hearing the said application, the learned Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 15.06.2024, had allowed the said application.

¶32

3.1. Mr. Mondal further submits that the petitioners herein are dominus litis and being dominus litis, it is their discretion to implead a party in a proceeding and the other side has no locus standi to file such an application for adding a party. Mr. Mondal also submits that the pleaded case of the petitioners is that the driver and owner of the Truck is responsible for being parked the Truck in the middle of the road without any signal, and the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the owner of the Truck only and that the owner and driver of the Winger has nothing to do with the same, and as such, impleadment of the owner, driver and insurer of the Winger is not necessary in all the MAC cases mentioned herein above, and it will cause delay in the proceeding.

¶33

3.2. By referring to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Khenyei vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Ors. , reported in (2015) 9 SCC 273 , Mr. Mondal submits that in the case of composite negligence, the plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several. In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tortfeasors vis-à-vis the plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them. In

¶34

Page No.# 5/7

¶35

case all the joint tortfeasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the Court/Tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tortfeasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of the payment to the plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/extent of their negligence has been determined by the Court/Tribunal, in the main case one joint tortfeasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings. And as such, allowing the impleadment application by the learned Tribunal, suffers from material irregularity and on such count, Mr. Mondal has contended to set aside the impugned order dated 15.06.2024.

¶36

4. Per contra, Ms. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent, by referring to the written statement filed by the respondent, especially the statements and averments made in paragraph Nos. 17 and 18, submits that in fact the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Winger vehicle, and that in connection with the said accident, Dudhnoi P.S. Case No. 4/2015, under Sections 279/338/304A/427 IPC was registered against one Sarseng K. Sangma, the driver of the Winger, bearing Registration No. AS-16-C2290, and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against him by the I.O., and as such, the respondent is not liable to pay compensation and no fault is being found on the part of the driver of the Truck, bearing Registration No. AS-01-EC-1831, and as such, the respondent had filed the application before the learned Tribunal and considering all the facts and circumstances and the materials available on the record, the learned Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 15.06.2024, had impleaded the insurer, owner and driver of the Winger

¶37

Page No.# 6/7

¶38

vehicle as opposite parties in the MAC cases. Ms. Roy also submits that the impugned order dated 15.06.2024, suffers from no infirmity or illegality requiring any interference of this Court, and therefore, she has contended to dismiss the petitions.

¶39

5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petitions and the documents placed on record, and also perused the order dated 15.06.2026, being impugned in all the three revision petitions.

¶40

6. It appears that the insurer, owner and driver of the Winger vehicle have already been arrayed as party in MAC Case No. 14/2016 and MAC Case No. 27/2016, and they have also contested the same. It also appears from the statement and averments made in paragraph Nos. 17 and 18 of the written statement, and also from the petition No. 5364/23, filed by the respondent herein, that against the driver of the Winger, bearing Registration No. AS-16-C2290, the I.O. of Dudhnoi P.S. Case No. 4/2015, under Sections 279/338/304A/427 IPC has submitted charge-sheet, and as such, involvement of the Winger in the accident is writ large on the face of the record and they have already been arrayed as respondents in other claim petitions, being MAC Case No. 14/2016 and MAC Case No. 27/2016, and in that view of matter, it cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination, that the impugned order suffers from any illegality or infirmity requiring any interference of this Court.

¶41

7. Since the involvement of the Winger vehicle in the aforementioned accident is not in dispute and since charge-sheet has been submitted against the driver of the Winger, and since the same has been brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal by filing written statement and also by filing an application by the respondent herein, it is incumbent upon the learned Tribunal to invoke

¶42

Page No.# 7/7

¶43

the powers under Order 1 Rule 10(2), read with Section 151 of the CPC.

¶44

8. This Court has also carefully gone through the decision referred by Mr. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioners, and this Court is of the view that the ratio laid down in the said case would not advance his argument, inasmuch as in paragraph No. 22.3 of the said decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that in case all the joint tortfeasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the Court/Tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers, and in that view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in these petitions, and accordingly, all the three revisions petitions stand dismissed.

¶45

9. Since the driver and owner of the Winger vehicle have already been impleaded in MAC Case No. 14/2016 and MAC Case No. 27/2016, and since involvement of the said vehicle in the accident and rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver is apparent on the face of the record, and charge-sheet has also been submitted by the I.O. against the driver, this Court is of the view that filing of the present revision petitions against the impugned order appears to be abuse of the process of the Court, which has to be discouraged. And as such, this Court is inclined to impose cost of Rs. 2,000/- each upon each of the petitioners, which shall be deposited before the Gauhati High Court Legal Services Authority within a period of two weeks from today.

¶46

Comparing Assistant

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Common order dated 15.06.2024 allowing the respondent-insurer's application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC, thereby impleading the owner, driver and insurer of the Winger vehicle (Regn. No. AS-16-C-2290) as opposite parties in MAC Case Nos. 241/2017, 242/2017 and 243/2017¶31
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara (learned Member) · 15.06.2024
Prior proceeding
Road accident of 03.01.2015 at about 6 p.m. at Shalikapara: a Winger vehicle travelling from Rangjang (Meghalaya) towards Dudhnoi dashed into Truck AS-01-EC-1831 parked in the middle of the National Highway without parking/hazard lights; the petitioners of all three petitions sustained injuries and took treatment at Goalpara Civil Hospital, Gauhati Medical College and a nursing home¶29
Prior proceeding
Petitioners filed compensation claim petitions under Section 166(i) of the M.V. Act, 1988, registered as MAC Case Nos. 241/2017, 242/2017 and 243/2017 before the Member, MACT Goalpara; evidence was concluded and cases fixed for argument¶29
Prior proceeding
After closure of evidence, the respondent National Insurance Co. Ltd (insurer of the offending Truck AS-01-EC-1831) filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC before the Tribunal seeking addition of the owner, driver and insurer of the Winger (Regn. No. AS-16-C-2290) as opposite parties¶31
Prior proceeding
Dudhnoi P.S. Case No. 4/2015 was registered under Sections 279/338/304A/427 IPC against Sarseng K. Sangma, driver of the Winger (Regn. No. AS-16-C2290); after investigation the I.O. submitted a charge-sheet against him¶36
Prior proceeding
The insurer, owner and driver of the Winger vehicle had already been arrayed as parties in MAC Case Nos. 14/2016 and 27/2016 and had contested those cases¶40
Prior proceeding
Paragraphs 17 and 18 of the respondent's written statement, together with Petition No. 5364/23 filed by the respondent, recorded that a charge-sheet had been submitted against the Winger driver¶40

Rofiqul Islam v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rofiqul Islam v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nabir Hussain and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Ajanta Pharma Limited Vs Susitra Goswami and 5 Ors.

Bajaj General Insurance Company Limited Vs Hunufa Khatun and 3 Ors.

Bidhan Harlalka Vs Sarla Harlalka and 2 Ors.

Habibor Rahman and Anr. Vs National Insurance Co. Limited

Kabita Devi Vs Bikram Chetry