Insurance Company's Plea Dismissed; Court Emphasizes Dominus Litis Principle and Limits of MACT's Jurisdiction
In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, presided by Justice Romesh Verma, dismissed petitions filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd., seeking the impleadment of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and KMC Construction Ltd. as parties in a motor accident claim. The court upheld the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Kullu, which had earlier rejected the insurance company's application for impleadment.
The case arose from a tragic accident on August 11, 2023, near Pandoh, District Mandi, where Maisha Aggarwal's mother and brother lost their lives due to a boulder falling on their vehicle. Maisha filed for compensation, claiming negligence by the vehicle's driver. The insurance company, however, argued that the accident was due to NHAI's negligence in road maintenance, specifically the lack of a retaining wall, and sought to involve NHAI and KMC Construction Ltd. as respondents.
The High Court, in its judgment dated June 19, 2026, emphasized that under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the MACT is empowered to pass awards only against the insurer, owner, or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. The court maintained that entities like NHAI, not specified under this section, cannot be made parties to such claims.
Justice Verma reiterated the legal principles surrounding the 'dominus litis' doctrine, affirming that the claimant has the discretion to choose parties against whom relief is sought. The court cited previous Supreme Court judgments, underscoring that a necessary party is one without whom no effective decree can be passed, which was not the case for NHAI or KMC Construction in this instance.
The insurance company's argument that the High Court should invoke its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution was also dismissed. The court clarified that such jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave injustice, neither of which was applicable here.
The decision highlights the judiciary's strict adherence to statutory provisions and established legal doctrines, ensuring that the process remains within defined legal boundaries. The outcome reinforces the principle that claimants cannot be compelled to litigate against parties they do not wish to include, provided the legal framework supports such exclusion.
Bottom line:-
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot pass an award against entities not specified under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, such as the National Highway Authority of India or its contractors, as they are not necessary or proper parties under the Act.
Statutory provision(s): Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 168, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 1, Rule 10, Constitution of India, 1950 Article 227
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Maisha Aggarwal, (Himachal Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2927355
