A vehicle dealer is not a necessary party absent ownership or responsibility for insurance.

The petitioners challenged the order dated 03.07.2026 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, in MACP No. 158 of 2021, whereby their application to implead Punjab Automobile Agency, the seller of the offending vehicle, as respondent No. 5 was dismissed.

The claim arose from the death of Gurmeet Singh @ Pali in a motor vehicle accident dated 30.06.2021.

During the evidence, the Regional Transport Officer’s record indicated that the insurer denied issuing the insurance policy relied upon by the claimants. The claimants therefore sought impleadment of the selling agency and respondent No. 4, alleging that the vehicle had first been sold to another purchaser, subsequently taken back, and thereafter sold to respondent No. 4.

The Tribunal permitted impleadment of respondent No. 4 on the basis of her affidavit concerning purchase of the vehicle but declined to implead the selling agency.

1. Whether the original selling agency was a necessary or proper party to the motor accident claim under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, merely because it had originally sold the vehicle.

2. Whether the insurer’s denial of having issued the insurance policy could justify impleading or fastening liability upon the selling agency.

3. Whether the selling agency could be treated as the owner of the vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in the absence of temporary registration, permanent registration, or other statutory authorisation for use of the vehicle on a public road.

Order I Rule 10 CPC permits addition of a party whose presence is necessary or proper for the complete and effective adjudication of the dispute, even where no final relief is claimed against that party.

In a motor accident claim, liability ordinarily falls upon the driver, registered owner and insurer; a vehicle seller is not a necessary party merely because it originally sold the vehicle.

Under Sections 41 and 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, legal ownership and lawful use of a vehicle on a public road are connected with temporary or permanent registration.

The principle relied upon from Managing Director, Sakthi Auto Agencies v. Santhi, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 2938, with reference to Tata Motors Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand, (2020) 15 SCC 438, is that a dealer may be treated as owner for relevant purposes where it obtains temporary registration under Section 43; alternatively, use for purposes covered by Rule 41 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules requires a valid trade certificate.

Mere denial by an insurer of having issued a policy does not, without supporting material, impose liability upon the selling agency.

The Court held that the selling agency’s original sale of the vehicle did not make it a necessary or proper party to the accident claim, particularly when the Tribunal had already impleaded the subsequent purchaser on the basis of her affidavit.

The insurer’s denial of the policy did not establish any liability of the agency because there was no evidence that the agency had issued, procured, or was contractually or statutorily bound to ensure the policy.

The precedent relied upon by the petitioners was distinguishable: there was no document showing that the agency had obtained temporary registration under Section 43 or possessed the relevant statutory authorisation to use the vehicle on a public road.

Consequently, the agency could not be treated as the vehicle’s owner for purposes of the claim.

In the absence of temporary registration, permanent registration, or other statutory authorisation establishing the agency’s status as owner, the Tribunal correctly refused its impleadment.

The revision petition was accordingly dismissed, and the Tribunal’s order dated 03.07.2026 was upheld.