The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Mr.Samiulla

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:14277 WP No. 3075 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 3075 OF 2026 (GM-AC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., 9/2, IIND FLOOR, MOTOR CLAIMS TP HUB, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS. M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESANTED BY ITS MANAGER

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VENKATESH KAMATH B R, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

MR.SAMIULLA, S/O LATE ABDUAL JABBAR, SRI.H.J. VENKATESHA, Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, by SHARADAVANI R/AT NO.127, 2ND WARD, B MADIGONDANAHALLI ROAD, Location: HIGH COURT OF RAJIVGANDHI COLONY, KARNATAKA DODDABALLAPURA TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

¶12

MRS SHAHANAVAJ, W/O. MR SAMIULLA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.127, 2ND WARD, MADIGONDANAHALLI ROAD,

¶13

2 -

¶14

NC: 2026:KHC:14277 WP No. 3075 of 2026

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

RAJIVGANDHI COLONY, DODDABALLAPURA TOWN, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

¶17

GANGA ANJEENI, PROP MARUTHI ENTERPRISES, OPP VST WHITE FIELD ROAD, MAHADEVAPURA,

¶18

BANGALORE - 560 048.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11-09-2025 PASSED IN MVC NO. 6081/2022 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED HONBLE 1ST ADDL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND ACJM AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU (SCCH-11), THE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS AT ANNEXTURE-A AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The captioned petition is filed by the insurance company calling in question the correctness and legality of the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rejecting the impleading application filed in MVC No.6081/2022.

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14277 WP No. 3075 of 2026

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

The facts leading to the present petition are that respondents No.1 and 2, who are the claimants before the Tribunal, have instituted a claim petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of the death of one Umar Farooq, who is stated to have succumbed to injuries sustained in a road traffic accident that occurred on 15.09.2022. In the said accident, the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle.

¶27

During the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the petitioner–insurance company filed an application under I.A. No.VI seeking impleadment of the owner of the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling. The petitioner contended in the application that the owner of the motorcycle was also responsible for the occurrence of the accident and therefore constituted a necessary and proper party to the proceedings. On this premise, the petitioner sought to implead the said rider so

¶28

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14277 WP No. 3075 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

that the issue relating to negligence could be effectively adjudicated by the Tribunal.

¶31

The said application was stoutly opposed by respondents No.1 and 2/claimants by filing detailed objections. The claimants contended that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending goods vehicle, which is admittedly insured with the present petitioner–insurance company. They further contended that the driver of the offending goods vehicle has already been charge-sheeted by the jurisdictional police after investigation and therefore there was no necessity to implead the rider of the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider.

¶32

Having examined the rival contentions, the Tribunal rejected the application filed by the insurance company. The Tribunal proceeded on the premise that it is well within the discretion of the claimants to institute the

¶33

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14277 WP No. 3075 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

claim petition against any one of the joint tortfeasors or against all of them. The Tribunal further noted that the deceased was only a pillion rider and that the claimants had chosen to seek compensation from the driver and insurer of the offending goods vehicle which, according to them, was responsible for the accident. On this reasoning, the Tribunal held that the rider of the motorcycle cannot be termed as a necessary party to the proceedings and consequently rejected the impleading application by order dated 11.09.2025.

¶36

When the matter was taken up for consideration before this Court, a specific query was put to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner–insurance company regarding the stage of the proceedings before the Tribunal. The learned counsel fairly submitted that the claim petition before the Tribunal has already reached the stage of final arguments and the matter is presently posted for pronouncement of judgment.

¶37

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:14277 WP No. 3075 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Be that as it may, having examined the material on record and the reasons assigned by the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted with the order impugned in the present petition. The claim petition is filed by the legal heirs of the deceased seeking compensation for the death caused in a motor vehicle accident. The claimants have chosen to institute the proceedings against the driver of the offending goods vehicle and the insurer covering the risk of the said vehicle.

¶40

It is a well-settled principle of law that in cases involving joint tortfeasors, the claimants have the option either to proceed against all the joint tortfeasors or to proceed against any one of them. The choice in this regard rests entirely with the claimants. Therefore, merely because the petitioner–insurance company asserts that the rider of the motorcycle might also have contributed to the accident, the claimants cannot be compelled to implead such person as a party to the proceedings.

¶41

7 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:14277 WP No. 3075 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

In the present case, it is also not in dispute that the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider and that the jurisdictional police, after investigation, have filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending goods vehicle. In that view of the matter, the claimants have chosen to seek compensation from the driver and insurer of the offending goods vehicle, which according to them is responsible for the accident. Such an election made by the claimants cannot be faulted.

¶45

This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner–insurance company has approached this Court at a belated stage when the matter before the Tribunal has already reached the stage of final arguments and is now posted for judgment. This circumstance also indicates a certain degree of laxity on the part of the petitioner in invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.

¶46

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:14277 WP No. 3075 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

In view of the settled legal position governing impleadment of joint tortfeasors and having regard to the stage at which the proceedings presently stand before the Tribunal, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the impleading application does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or perversity warranting interference under the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶49

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed .

¶50

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶51

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Mr.Samiulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Mr.Samiulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaif Ullah Khan Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Surya Roadlines Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Prajwal .S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Manjunath Kumar K.M Vs Sri. S. Puttaswamy

Ms X Vs State of Karnataka

Girijana Plastic Kasubudara Sangha (R) Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co. Operative Societies and District Registrar of Societies.