Inter se contractual liability does not make third-party transporters necessary parties in motor accident claim proceedings.

The Petitioner, an authorized dealer for Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (Respondent No. 7), challenged an order dated 30.11.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Rajkot, which rejected its application (Exh. 83) to implead the vehicle manufacturer (Respondent No. 7) and the transport agency (Respondent No. 6) as opponents in a fatal accident claim

On 27.07.2015, a Bolero jeep owned by the Petitioner met with an accident while being transported from a stockyard to the showroom, resulting in the death of Gautambhai Hasmukhbhai Heerpara

The Petitioner argued that per the Dealership and Secondary Transport Agreements, possession and liability rested with the manufacturer and transporter at the time of the accident

1. Whether the manufacturer (Respondent No. 7) and the transporter (Respondent No. 6) are necessary or proper parties to be impleaded in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

2. Whether inter-se commercial agreements between an owner and third parties can shift statutory liability toward third-party claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding the filing of compensation claims, and Section 2(30), which defines "owner"

The principle of Dominus Litis, asserting that the claimant has the right to choose the parties against whom they seek relief

Contractual indemnity clauses or arbitration agreements (Article 38 of the Dealership Agreement) govern inter-se disputes but do not override statutory liability toward third parties in motor accident torts

The Court reasoned that at the time of the accident, the Petitioner was the registered owner of the vehicle

While the Petitioner cited contractual clauses stating the transporter was "solely responsible", the Court found that these agreements only defined rights inter-se (between the signing parties) and could not bind a third-party claimant

The Court noted that the transporter acted as a representative of the dealer-Petitioner, meaning the Petitioner remained the "owner" under Section 2(30)

The Court observed that in a related claim arising from the same accident (MACP No. 329 of 2015), the Tribunal had already declined to fasten liability on the manufacturer and transporter, a finding the Petitioner did not challenge

Consequently, the proposed parties were neither necessary nor proper for the adjudication of the claim

The Petitioner’s remedy for any loss incurred due to the transporter's negligence lies in independent arbitration proceedings as per the contract, not within the specialized jurisdiction of the MACT

The High Court dismissed the Special Civil Application and upheld the Tribunal’s order