NHAI Not A Necessary Party In Motor Accident Compensation Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and its road contractor are neither necessary nor proper parties in proceedings before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), as the Tribunal is empowered under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act to pass an award only against the insurer, owner or driver of the offending vehicle.

The Court observed that MACT lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate tortious claims against third parties such as road-maintaining authorities and consequently upheld the rejection of the insurer's plea seeking impleadment of NHAI and the contractor in compensation proceedings.

Justice Romesh Verma remarked that: "The tribunal can pass an award only against the insurer or owner or the driver and the tribunal has got no authority to pass an award against the third person in the claim petition. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the National Highway Authority of India and Director, KMC Construction Ltd. are neither necessary nor proper parties."

Background:

The case arose from two claim petitions filed before the MACT, Kullu, by minor Maisha Aggarwal through her grandfather, seeking compensation for the deaths of her mother, Dhanwanti, and brother, Chinmay Aggarwal, who died after a large boulder fell on the vehicle in which they were travelling near Pandoh, Mandi, on 11 August 2023. The claim petitions alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle despite heavy rockfall in the area. 

The insurer opposed the claims and contended that the accident was attributable to the negligence of NHAI and its contractor, KMC Construction Ltd., for failing to maintain proper safety measures and retaining structures on the highway. It therefore moved applications under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead NHAI and the contractor as additional respondents. The MACT rejected the applications, following which the insurer invoked the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 

The High Court upheld the MACT's order and held that the proposed parties were neither necessary nor proper parties to the claim proceedings.

Referring to Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court observed that the statutory jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal is confined to determining the liability of the insurer, owner or driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate tortious claims against authorities responsible for road construction or maintenance.

The Court further reiterated the settled principles governing impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC. It held that the claimant, being dominus litis, is entitled to choose the parties against whom relief is sought and cannot ordinarily be compelled to implead additional parties.

The Court also declined to interfere under Article 227, reiterating that supervisory jurisdiction is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or grave procedural irregularities and cannot be exercised as an appellate jurisdiction merely because another view is possible. 

Case Name: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Maisha Aggarwal & others

Case No.: CMPMO No.695 of 2025 & 35 of 2026

Decision Date: 19.06.2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order