Bombay High Court

MAHALAXMI AUTOMOTIVE PVT LTD THR ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORYversusMADHURI DATTATRAY VAVAL AND ORS

Decided: 7 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The High Court held that the MACT did not commit any error in allowing the impleadment and dismissed the writ petition.

Summary

Mahalaxmi Automotive Pvt. Ltd., the registered owner of a vehicle involved in an accident, was impleaded as a respondent in a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) after the claimant sought amendment of the claim. The petitioner challenged the MACT order allowing its impleadment, arguing that the amendment was untimely and that the insurer and driver had already raised the issue. The High Court noted that the petitioner was indeed the insured and that the insurer’s liability to indemnify arises only after the insured is held liable, concluding that the MACT acted within its jurisdiction. The Court found no error in the MACT’s decision to deem the petitioner a necessary party. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in allowing the amendment to implead the registered owner as a respondent.
Whether the petitioner, as the insured, is a necessary party to the claim application.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the MACT’s order under its writ jurisdiction.

Subjects

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
impleadment
necessary party
insurance liability
writ petition
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
High Court of Bombay

Judgment

2026:BHC-AS:36708

                                                                         10 wp 2659 of 2026.doc

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 WRIT PETITION NO.2659 OF 2026

            Mahalaxmi Automotive Pvt. Ltd.                     ...   Petitioner
                 versus
            Madhuri Dattatray Vaval and Ors.                   …     Respondents

            Mr. Jagdish A. Reddy, for Petitioner.

                                CORAM:      N.J.JAMADAR, J.

                                DATE :      7 SEPTEMBER 2026

            P.C.

            1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

            2.      The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 12 January 2026

            passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT),

            whereby an application preferred by the Respondent No.1 – claimant, in

            MACP No.183 of 2026 seeking permission to amend the claim application so

            as to implead the Petitioner as party Respondent to the claim application,

            came to be allowed. It was, inter alia, asserted that, the Petitioner was the

            registered owner of the vehicle at the time of the alleged accident. Finding

            that the Petitioner is a necessary party, the learned Member, MACT, allowed

            the application.

            3.      Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Insurance

            Company as well as the driver of the vehicle had raised specific grounds that

            the Petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle in question was


            SSP                                                                   1/2
                                                                                    10 wp 2659 of 2026.doc

                      required to be impleaded as a party Respondent to the claim application. In

                      fact, the Respondent No.3 had filed an application seeking permission to

                      amend the written statement so as to bring the said fact on record. Learned

                      Member, MACT, by an order dated 23 August 2023 had rejected the said

                      application as the Respondent No.1 – claimant, had opposed the said

                      amendment. Thus, there was no propriety in impleading the Petitioner at

                      such a belated stage.

                      4.       Incontrovertibly, the Petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle

                      at the time of the alleged accident. The Petitioner was thus the insured. The

                      liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured would arise only when the

                      insured is held liable to pay the compensation. In this view of the matter, the

                      learned Member, MACT, cannot be said to have committed any error in

                      allowing the impleadment of the Petitioner as a necessary party to the claim

                      application.

                      5.       Thus, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, this Court does not find any

                      justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order.

                      6.       Writ Petition, thus, stands dismissed.




                                                                          ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )




                      SSP                                                                  2/2



Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 07/09/2026 19:29:06

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…