IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT , BILASPUR w.P. (C) No. 6%6 OF 2009 PETITIONER Non-Applicant No. 2 /: Mohd. Rafi , aged about 52 years, S/o Late Shri Abdul Hafij, Occupation — Vehicle Owner, R/o Mahgaon, Beside Office Central Bank, Bhayyathan Road, Surajpur, District Sarguja ( C.G.) VERSUS Reshma, Wd/o Late Mohd. Yuunus Aged about 24 years /2. ESPONDENTS : 1. /, Fiza, D/o Late Mohd. Yuunus aged about 03 years, through Natural Guardian Mother- KQLMW & Rahi, D/o Late Mohd. Yuunus , aged about 11/2 years, through Naturai Guardian Mother ~ &-Un'\m\;\ Khushnuma, D/o Late Mohd._ uunus aged about 11/2 years, through Natural Guardian MotherL‘RM Phatmun W/o Sahban Khan,aged about 48 years - W ‘Sahban Khan, S/o Murad Ali, aged about 55 years Tahsi Jashpurp District Raigarh (M.P.) (Now C.G.) Respondent Nos. 1-6 resident of Masjid Para City- Surajpur, Police Station & TahSil Surajpur, District SARGUJA (CHHATrIs‘GARH) --—-Claimants R Y ? C2 ,/ x7. Nankuram, S/o Santu Singh, By Caste Gond, aged about 38 years, Occupation Driver, R/o ViHage Chanderpur, Police Station & Tahsil Surajpur, District Sarguja (CHHATTISGARH) ----Non-applicant No. 1 é.‘ ,8. The United India Insurance Company Limited through Branch Manager, Branch Office near Ram Mandir, Ambikapur, District-Sarguja (C.G.) ---—Non-applicant/yo,2\‘i % WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI‘ ‘MANDAMUS OR APPROPRIATATE ORDERIDIRECTION ETC. S.B. Hon’ble Shri Justice N.K. Agarwal 06.1 1 .2009 Shri Bhaskar Payashi, counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. By way of instant petition, ti e petitioner is impugning the order dated 11-08-2009 passed by Fir Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur. Distt. Surguja i Claim Case No.27/2007 whereby and whereunder an applicatio led by the petitioner herein to implead owner, insurer of the j ep which was being driven by deceased Mohd. Yunus as party h s been dismissed. The facts briefly stated as u der:- The claimants who are l gal representatives of deceased Mohd. Yunus i.e. Jeep driver file a petition against'the owner i.e. petitioner, driver and Insurance ompany of the Truck which was according to them involved in t e said accident. The petitioner appeared in the case and med a w itten statement and submitted that the accident occurred due to r shand negligent driving of the deceased himself, therefore, the l surance Company and the owner of the said jeep are also necessary parties in the instant case.‘ After tiling their reply, the étitioner also filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. t as party. The said application implead Jeep owner and insurer dismissed by the Court below holding that the petitioner did produce any evidence to show g negligence of the deceased a d during trial if it found that s n i s n deceased was also contributed i thesaid accident then, certainly compensation amount can be s ‘itably reduced and. dismissed the petition . Learned counsel for the p impugned order, in fact, the lear ioner would submit that by way of e ' trial Court has decided this issue and held that the deceased was ot negligent at all. Therefore, this tinding in the said order is perve e. He further submits that since one issue would be there beforet e Tribunal for its consideration that who is responsible for the said ac, dent and, therefore, the owner and insurer of the jeep are also neces ant party and his application ought tovhave aliowed bythe learned Tri l have heard learned couns lfor the petitioner and perused the record and impugned order. lf two vehicles are involved n the accident, out of one is driver. of the one vehicle then it may be a case of contributory negligence which has to be decided by the le rned Tribunal after considering the documents and material availab Certainly, if upon appreciation of evidence, learned ourt below come to the conclusion ‘ that deceased has also contrib ted.to the said accident or the‘ i deceased was solely negligent th n the Court will decide and pass the award accordingly. The learn d trial court also has observed in the said order in this manner. Bu so far as the impleadment of the petitioner is concerned, the claim nt is dominus Iitis for impleading V respondents. ~ unal. on record. . Sd/_ N. K. Agarwal Judge n l t mm (Wu) ' man ma amt mmawW