IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1425 of 2008 National Insurance Company Ltd. through Sri Anjani Kumar, A.O. cum Duly Constituted Attorney Regional Office 4th Floor Sone Bhawan, B.C. Patel Road, Patna. …………..(Opp. Party no. 3) ……………Petitioner Versus 1. Somi Dei Prasad, wife of Late Premadhar Prasad …………. (Claimant no. 1) 2. Arti daughter of Late Premadhar Prasad …………………….(Claimant no. 2) 3. Swati daughter of Late Premadhar Prasad …………………..(Claimant no. 3) 4. Shail Kmari Devi, wife of Late Ramta Raman Prasad ………(Claimant no. 4) All residents of 22, State Bank Colony At & P.S. Danapur, P.O.-Digha, District- Patna. 5. M/s. Eastern Carries Alias M/s Eastern Carriers through its partner Amar Pal Singh 2, Ganesh Chandra Avenue Kolkata 13 West Bengal ………..(Opp. Party No. 1) 6. Tribhuwan Sah, son of Ramjivan Sah, Resident of Village-Samauli, P.O. & P.S.- Masarak District-Saran ………………….(Opp. Party No. 2)………..Opp. Parties ----------- 3 9/9/2009 Heard Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. By the impugned order, prayer of the Insurance Company, opposite party no.3 in the claim case pending before the Additional District Judge-Cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Patna for a direction to the claimant-opposite parties for addition of Smt. Indu Devi, owner of Ambassador Car No. BR- 06F-6112 and the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Muzaffarpur, insurer of the said Ambassador Car belonging to Smt. Indu Devi as party to the claim case has been rejected. Mr. Priyadarshi, counsel for the petitioner would submit that accident in question involving truck insured by the petitioner had taken place by involvement of an Ambassador Car belonging to Smt. Indu Devi leading to the death of Late Premdhari Prasad and as such it was necessary that owner of the said Ambassador Car as also insurer of the Ambassador Car ought 2 to have been made party to the claim case filed by the dependants of Late Premdhari Prasad. He has further submitted that approach of the court below in rejecting such application of the petitioner Insurance Company suffers from patent jurisdictional error and for this purpose he has referred to and relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of ‘Vijoy Mahaseth Vs. Dinanth Jha’ reported in 1980 PLJR 415. In the opinion of this Court, it appears that the application filed by petitioner Insurance Company was wholly malafide and infact aimed only delay the disposal of claim case filed by the heirs and dependants of the deceased, Late Premdhar Prasad. From the impugned order it would actually appear that after the Insurance Company had found that owner and driver of truck in question insured by the petitioner-Insurance Company, despite substituted service of notice published in the newspaper had not appeared and when the Tribunal had also allowed prayer of the petitioner for proceeding exparte as against them, the present prayer through an application of petitioner was made for impleading owner and insurer of the other vehicle at the instance of the Insurance Company, as it became apprehensive that it could alone become liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. This Court would find that it is a settled law that it is for the plaintiff to implead necessary party or face the consequences on account of non joinder of necessary parties. If the 3 defendants are allowed to interrupt the proceedings on the ground of non joinder of necessary parties at the stage of hearing of the claim case or the suit, the same can never come to an end. Added to it, if the Insurance Company is so sanguine and sure of involvement of other car, Ambassador Car and fastening of liability on the owner and insurer of the said Ambassador Car, it can always lead evidence to that effect in course of hearing. If the Tribunal in such event finds that the claim case cannot be adjudicated in absence of such owner of Ambassador Car and/or its insurer, it cannot proceed to pass a final order adverse to the interest of the claimant rejecting their only on the ground of non joinder of necessary parties. That however will not give a right to a contesting opposite party, refusing its own liability to pay compensation by way of compelling the claimants to add one or more person as a party to the claim case. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of this Court in the case of Vijoy Kumar Mahaseth (Supra) seems to be also misplaced, inasmuch as, the same does not lay down a law that the contesting Insurance Company can compel the claimant to add a party to the proceedings. That being so, this Court must hold that the application filed by the Insurance Company was wholly frivolous and has been rightly rejected by the tribunal. Accordingly, there is no merit in this application and 4 the same is dismissed with a direction to the tribunal to ensure that the claim case filed by the opposite parties is decided within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)