THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusSANJAY SHANTARAM KADAM AND ANR

2026:BHC-AS:40765

                                                                         14 wp 6326 of 2026.doc

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 WRIT PETITION NO.6326 OF 2026

            The Divisional Manager, The Oriental
            Insurance Co. Ltd.                       ...   Petitioner
                  versus
            Sanjay Shantaram Kadam and Anr.          …     Respondents
                                               WITH
                               WRIT PETITION NO.6367 OF 2026

            The Divisional Manager, The Oriental
            Insurance Co. Ltd.                       ...   Petitioner
                  versus
            Pramod Shantaram Adurkar and Ors.        …     Respondents
                                               WITH
                               WRIT PETITION NO.6360 OF 2026

            The Divisional Manager, The Oriental
            Insurance Co. Ltd.                       ...   Petitioner
                  versus
            Ravindra Bal Angare and Anr.             …     Respondents
                                               WITH
                               WRIT PETITION NO.6843 OF 2026

            The Divisional Manager, The Oriental
            Insurance Co. Ltd.                                 ...   Petitioner
                  versus
            Pramod Shantaram Adurkar and Ors.                  …     Respondents

            Mr. Rushabh S. Vidyarthi with Ms. Saumen S. Vidyarthi, Ms. Ishita Bhole, for
            Petitioners.

                                CORAM:      N.J.JAMADAR, J.

                                DATE :      5 OCTOBER 2026

            P.C.

            1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.



            SSP                                                                   1/4
                                                              14 wp 6326 of 2026.doc

2.    These Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assail the

legality, propriety and correctness of identical orders passed by the learned

Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane, whereby the applications

preferred by the Petitioners – Insurer, to implead the owner and insurer of

another vehicle bearing No.HR-61-B-3455 as party opponents to the

respective Claim Petitions, came to be rejected.

3.    The substance of the applications preferred by the Petitioners was that

the accident which resulted in death and injury to the passengers who were

travelling in the Tata Magic Vehicle bearing No.MH-04/EX-2920 had occurred

on account of the sole negligence of the driver of the container bearing

registration No.HR-61-B-3455, and, therefore, the owner and insurer of the

said vehicle were necessary parties to the claim Petitions.

4.    Learned Member, MACT, was of the view that since it was a case of

composite negligence, the claimants were entitled to sue both or either of the

joint tortfeasors, and, therefore, the impleadment of the owner and insurer of

the said vehicle was not necessary.

5.    Mr. Vidyarthi, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, made an endeavour

to drive home the point that the material on record does indicate that the

driver of the vehicle, which was insured with the Petitioner, was not at all

negligent and the accident had occurred on account of the sole negligence of

the driver of the container bearing No.HR-61-B-3455. Thus, it was not a case


SSP                                                                  2/4
                                                                14 wp 6326 of 2026.doc

of composite negligence.

6.        I am afraid to accede to the aforesaid submissions.             It is well

recognized that in case of composite negligence, the claimant is entitled to

sue all or any of joint tortfeasors and recover the entire compensation as the

liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several. The determination of the extent

of negligence between the joint tortfeasors even when both are impleaded is

only for the purpose of their inter se liability, so that one may recover the sum

from other after making whole of payment to the claimant to the extent it has

satisfied the liability of other.      Where the other joint tortfeasor is not

impleaded, the joint tortfeasor who was made to satisfy the liability has to

institute an independent proceeding against the said joint tortfeasor (Khenyei

V/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.1).

7.       In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that two vehicles were involved

in a collision. The claimants have impleaded the Petitioner and owner of the

vehicle which was insured with the Petitioner. The claimants in such a case

cannot be compelled to implead other joint tortfeasors.         In the event, the

Petitioners are saddled with the liability, the Petitioner would be at liberty to

invoke the remedies against the purported tortfeasors.        Thus, the impugned

orders passed by the learned Member, MACT, do not warrant interference in

exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction.


1    2015 ACJ 1441 (SC)

SSP                                                                    3/4
                                                                                     14 wp 6326 of 2026.doc

                      8.       The Writ Petitions, thus, stand dismissed.




                                                                            ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )




                      SSP                                                                   4/4



Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 07/10/2026 18:52:52