IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. PREMALATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 10.03.2017 made in I.A. No.1713 of 2016 in M.C.O.P.No.256 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal.

(2.) Revision petitioner is the Insurance Company. According to the revision petitioner, an application to implead the proposed party as third respondent in main MCOP has been filed by him. It is the case of the petitioner that the said proposed party is the owner of the bike bearing Reg. No. TN 47 AZ 3512, who is the wrongdoer and hence, he is necessary party in the claim petition. A counter had been filed by the third respondent stating that his name was wrongly included in the FIR and that he is not a necessary party in the aforesaid MCOP. Considering the rival submissions on either side, the trial Court had dismissed the said application. Hence the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the claim petition has been filed by the first and second respondents against the insurer and the owner of the offending vehicle and not against the wrongdoer and hence, the third respondent is absolutely a necessary party in the proceedings and, therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court is erroneous.