MOHANDAS VINAYAK NAIK AND ANR v. DATTARAJ TUKARAM GAUDE AND 4 ORS
Premature Deletion of Insurance Company from MACT Claim Petition: High Court Quashes Order, Emphasizing Need for Complete Pleadings and Evidence.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-GOA:21
Decision Date: 12-01-2026
List of Laws
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Goa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991
- Facts: A motor accident occurred involving a Maruti Swift driven by Respondent No. 1 and a Tata Container driven by Respondent No. 3. The Petitioners filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) against Respondents No. 1 to 4. Respondent No. 2 (Bajaj Allianz), the insurer of the Maruti Swift, filed an application to be dropped from the proceedings, arguing its policy was for own damage only, not third-party liability. The MACT allowed this application and impleaded Respondent No. 5 (ICICI Lombard) as a party.
- Procedural Posture: The Petitioners, original claimants in the MACT, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay at Goa, challenging the MACT's order that allowed the deletion of Respondent No. 2 (Bajaj Allianz) from the claim petition.
- Issue: Did the MACT err in allowing the deletion of Respondent No. 2 (Bajaj Allianz) from the claim petition at a preliminary stage, before the completion of pleadings, framing of issues, and recording of evidence, particularly when the insurance policy's terms were yet to be fully examined?
- Holding: Yes, the High Court held that the MACT erred in allowing the deletion of Respondent No. 2 at such a preliminary stage. The impugned order was quashed and set aside.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the MACT's action was contrary to Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the relevant Rules. The Tribunal is obligated to complete pleadings, frame issues, and record evidence from all parties before determining liability. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal cannot decide issues piecemeal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Bimlesh and Others V/s New India Assurance Company Limited. The High Court also cited Om Prakash Jaiswal & Ors V/s Manish Kumar & Ors from the Delhi High Court, which held that deletion of parties should be decided based on scrutiny of evidence. The Court noted that Respondent No. 5's written statement was filed after the impugned order, and issues were framed in the absence of Respondent No. 2. The Tribunal must now recast the issues and allow the Claimants to present their evidence.
🔒 For Members Only