The High Court of Bombay at Goa allowed a writ petition challenging an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) that deleted Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. as a respondent in a motor accident claim case -- The accident occurred on 14.08.2022 involving vehicles insured by multiple companies -- The Petitioners filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Respondent No. 2 applied for deletion, claiming its policy covered only own damage, not third-party liability -- The MACT allowed the deletion without completing pleadings or recording evidence -- The High Court held this was premature, as liability determination requires a full inquiry under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- The Court set aside the impugned order, reinstating Respondent No. 2 as a party, and directed the MACT to proceed with the claim after proper evidence and inquiry.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-- Sections 140, 165, 166 and 168-- Goa Motor vehicles Rules, 1991-- Rules 275 to 305-- Code of civil procedure, 1908-- Order 1 Rule 10-- Accident-- Claim for compensation-- Respondent/Insuance company filed an application for deletion an opponent in claim petition-- Ld tribunal passed an order and deleted respondent/insuance company from claim petition-- Aggrived-- Challenged by claimants before high court-- Jurisdiction of claim tribunal-- Procedure and powers of tribunal discussed-- Rules framed for following inquiries in claim petition-- Tribunals are not vested with the powers to decide the plea raised by different parties individually, without evidence being recorded and without an inquiry being held into rival contentions-- Case of Bimlesh (Supra) referred-- No justification in deletion of insuance company as opponent party in claim petition-- Ld.tribunal failed to follow the provisions of MV Act and Rules-- Impugned order set aside-- Direction to restore insurance complany as opponent in claim petition-- Petition allowed
Para-- 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the MACT, and reinstated Respondent No. 2 as a party to Claim Petition No. 88/2022 -- The Court directed the MACT to proceed with the claim after completing pleadings, framing issues, and recording evidence as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Citation: 2026 LawText (BOM) (01) 27
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 692 of 2023
Date of Decision: 2026-01-12
Case Title: The Issue of whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) could delete an insurance company as a party at the initial stage of proceedings without completing pleadings, framing issues, or recording evidence, based solely on the insurance policy terms.
Before Judge: Valmiki Menezes J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026:BHC-GOA:21
Advocate(s): Mr. R. G. Ramani, Mr. Pranav Kakodkar, Mr. Amey Kakodkar, Mr. Pankaj Shirodkar, Mr. Vaman Kurtikar, Mr. James Lopes, Ms. Gauri Borkar
Appellant: Shri. Mohandas Vinayak Naik, Smt. Shaila Mohandas Naik
Respondent: Shri. Dattaraj Tukaram Gaude, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Shri. Harish Kumar B. G., HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Nature of Litigation: Writ petition challenging an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) that deleted an insurance company as a respondent in a motor accident claim case.
Remedy Sought: The Petitioners sought to set aside the MACT order dated 10.08.2023 and reinstate Respondent No. 2 as a party to the claim petition.
Filing Reason: The Petitioners filed the writ petition because the MACT deleted Respondent No. 2 (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.) at the initial stage without completing pleadings or recording evidence, which they argued was premature and violated procedural fairness.
Previous Decisions: The MACT, in its order dated 10.08.2023, allowed Respondent No. 2's application for deletion and impleaded Respondent No. 5 as a party, based on the insurance policy terms indicating no third-party liability coverage.
Issues: Whether the MACT could delete an insurance company as a party at the initial stage of proceedings without completing pleadings, framing issues, or recording evidence. Whether the deletion of Respondent No. 2 based solely on the insurance policy terms, without a full inquiry, violates principles of natural justice and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Submissions/Arguments: The Petitioners argued that deletion was premature as pleadings were incomplete, Respondent No. 5 was not served, issues were not framed, and evidence was not recorded -- Liability should be determined after evidence from all parties. Respondent No. 2 argued that deletion was valid as the policy covered only own damage, not third-party risk -- Order I Rule 10 CPC allows dropping parties at any stage, and the MACT could examine the policy without waiting for trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The liability of insurance companies in motor accident claims must be determined after a full inquiry and evidence under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Deletion of a party at the initial stage, without such inquiry, violates principles of natural justice and procedural fairness -- The MACT should not decide liability based solely on policy documents without recording evidence from all parties.
Judgment Excerpts: The Petitioners submitted that the Respondent No. 2 could not have been dropped at the initial stage of the proceedings when pleadings were not completed -- The issues were yet to be framed and evidence was yet to be recorded. The Court held that every application for compensation made under Section 166 be decided after the parties are heard and an inquiry is held into the claim -- An award determining the compensation is to be passed after an inquiry.
Procedural History: On 14.08.2022, a motor accident occurred -- The Petitioners filed Claim Petition No. 88/2022 on 24.11.2022 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Respondent No. 2 filed an application for deletion on 09.03.2023 -- The MACT passed the impugned order on 10.08.2023, deleting Respondent No. 2 and impleading Respondent No. 5 -- The Petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 692 of 2023 challenging this order -- The High Court heard the petition and pronounced the judgment on 12.01.2026.
