Order 1 Rule 10 CPC Not Applicable to MACT Proceedings - Tribunal Has No Power to Delete Parties Without Full Trial : Bombay High Court

“A Claim Tribunal Cannot Decide Liability Piecemeal — All Issues Must Be Adjudicated Together After Recording of Evidence”, On January 12, 2026, the Bombay High Court at Goa delivered a decisive ruling in Writ Petition No. 692 of 2023, setting aside the premature deletion of an insurance company from a motor accident compensation case, and clarifying that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) must conduct a full-fledged inquiry before determining liability, as per the statutory framework under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Justice Valmiki Menezes, while restoring Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. as a respondent in the pending claim proceedings, held that: “The Tribunal is not vested with powers to decide the pleas raised by different parties individually, without evidence being recorded and without an inquiry being held into the rival contentions.”

The Court ruled that the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the CPC are not applicable to the MACT, and therefore, the Tribunal could not have invoked any power to drop a party at the preliminary stage without following the process prescribed under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with the Goa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991.

“Deletion of a Party Must Be Based on Evidence — Tribunal Cannot Short-circuit the Process by Examining Insurance Contracts at Threshold Stage”

The case arose from an accident on 14 August 2022, involving two vehicles, leading to the filing of Claim Petition No. 88/2022 by the petitioners, Shri Mohandas Vinayak Naik and Smt. Shaila Mohandas Naik, before the MACT, Margao. The claim was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation, along with an application under Section 140 for interim relief.

Bajaj Allianz, who was impleaded as Respondent No.2, sought deletion from the proceedings claiming that the policy issued by it covered only own damage and not third-party liability, and that the third-party risk was covered under a separate policy with ICICI Lombard (Respondent No.5). The MACT accepted this contention and deleted Bajaj Allianz before completion of pleadings, without framing issues or recording any evidence.

The High Court found this approach fundamentally flawed and violative of statutory procedure. Justice Menezes observed: “Going through the scheme of the aforementioned Rules and of the Act… the Tribunal would be obliged to take on record pleadings of all parties, frame issues and direct the parties to lead evidence… Only thereafter can it decide whether an insurer is liable to pay compensation under the contract.”

“Claims Tribunal Cannot Exercise Powers Not Given by Law — CPC’s Order I Rule 10 Not Made Applicable Under Rule 300 of Goa MV Rules”

The Court made it clear that the Claims Tribunal is a creature of statute, and its powers are confined to those expressly conferred under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

Justice Menezes pointed out: “Under Rule 300, it is only some of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 that have been applied to proceedings before Claims Tribunals… The provisions of Order I Rule 10 CPC, which empowers a Civil Court to implead or drop parties, are not made applicable.”

Therefore, the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction in dropping Bajaj Allianz from the claim based solely on its own interpretation of the policy, without trial.

“Determination of Insurance Liability Is Not a Preliminary Issue — Must Be Decided on Basis of Evidence After Framing of Issues”

The Court drew support from two binding precedents. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bimlesh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 591, the Court reaffirmed that: “The Claims Tribunal is required to dispose of all issues in one go while deciding the claim application… It cannot decide these piecemeal.”

Similarly, the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Om Prakash Jaiswal v. Manish Kumar, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5506, was quoted with approval:

“The actual relationship between the owner of the offending vehicle and Respondent No.3 should have been left to be determined by the Tribunal on scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties… The claim proceedings should not have been scuttled at this preliminary stage.”

In the present case, the High Court noted that Respondent No.5 (ICICI Lombard) — the other insurance company involved — had not even filed its written statement when Bajaj Allianz was deleted from the case. The Court highlighted that no issues were framed, and no evidence recorded, making the MACT’s deletion order procedurally untenable.

“The course adopted by the Tribunal is totally contrary to the provisions of Sections 168 and 169 of the Act and contrary to the provisions of the Rules… The entire scheme of the Act and Rules… has been given a go-by.”

“Existence of Multiple Insurance Policies Requires Factual Inquiry — Tribunal Must Examine All Insurance Contracts in Evidence”

The Court emphasized that there were disputed facts regarding which insurance policy covered third-party liability, and whether both Bajaj Allianz and ICICI Lombard were concurrently liable. These were not questions to be decided summarily or at the threshold stage.

“In the present case, tendering of the contract of insurance produced by each of the insurance companies is essential… It is only after completion of the inquiry and after all evidence is recorded that the Tribunal could decide whether an insurer is liable.”

Accordingly, the Court found that deleting Bajaj Allianz from the claim without trial was not only premature but also legally unsustainable.

“Tribunal Must Recast Issues and Proceed Afresh After Restoring Deleted Party”

Noting that ICICI Lombard (Respondent No.5) had filed its written statement during the pendency of the writ petition, and that issues were framed in the absence of Bajaj Allianz, the High Court directed that the Tribunal must recast the issues after restoring Respondent No.2.

“The Tribunal shall, if pleadings are complete, recast the issues in view of the defence taken by Respondent No.2 and then direct the claimants to commence their evidence… After recording evidence of all parties, the Tribunal shall proceed to decide the claim petition by passing its Award on all issues.”

Tribunal Must Follow Statutory Mandate and Cannot Prejudge Liability

The Bombay High Court’s judgment underscores that Claims Tribunals cannot exercise jurisdiction not vested in them, and that insurance liability in motor accident claims must be determined only after a full inquiry based on pleadings and evidence.

“The impugned order is therefore quashed and set aside for the aforementioned reasons. Rule is made absolute.”

This ruling ensures that due process is followed in MACT proceedings, and that injured claimants or victims are not denied rightful adjudication due to technical or premature decisions.

Date of Decision: January 12, 2026