J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) has questioned the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal, at Himatnagar, on 20-7-1992, rejecting an application, Ex. 27, in motor Accident Claim Case No. 170 of 1991, holding that proposed parties are not required to be joined as parties in the claim petition, by invoking the aids of the provisions of Sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure code (C. P. C. ). ( 2 ) THE opponents Nos. 1 to 5 are the original claimants and the heirs of deceassed-driver, Hariharbhai Gaurishanker, who was driving a Fiat motor Car on the unfortunate day of accident. They claimed compensation for the untimely demise of their bread winner in a vehicular accident. The petitioner, G. S. R. T. C. , is original opponent No. 2 and opponent No. 6 herein is the original opponent No. 1 driver of the offending S. T. Bus. ( 3 ) THE petitioner submitted an application on 27/03/1992, at exh. 27. for joining the owner of the Fiat Car and the Insurance company of the said car to be opponents Nos. 3 and 4 in the original proceeding in the claim petition. The petitioner, inter alia, contended that the owner of the Fiat Car, which was driven by the deceased and the insurer of the said car were necessary parties. The said application came to be rejected by the Tribunal and, hence, this revision. ( 4 ) EVEN without entering into the jurisdictional limited scope of this court in a revision under Sec. 115 of the C. P. C. , this Court finds the present revision without, any substance. The impugned order rejecting an application, Exh. 27, under Order 1, Rule 10 of the C. P. C. cannot be said to be erroneous or unjustified. No doubt, the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without application of party to the proceedings pending before the Court, is competent to order for addition of any necessary party in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and, settle all the questions and issues involved in the litigation. This proposition of law requires no further elucidation. This proposition of law requires no further elucidation. However, in view of the peculiar facts of the present case, the insured and insurer of the Fiat Car could not be said to be necessary party, as deceased himself was the driver of the said car, who succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in a collision between the Fiat Car and the S. T. Bus. Reliance is sought to be placed on the decision of this court rendered in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. Gurunath Sahu and Ors. , and reported in [1989 (1)] XXX (1) GLR 581, in support of this revision. The said decision is inapplicable to the peculiar facts of the present case. Therefore, the question as to whether what is the ratio decidendi laid down in the said decision of this Court or whether the observations made by this Court in the said decision in relation to the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 of the C. P. C. are obiter would not be necessary to be gone into at this stage, in this case. Needless to mention that it has always been for the tortfeasor to contend that the deceased was guilty for a contributory negligence and, if the Tribunal, upon the facts and the evidence on record, finds deceased driver contributorily negligent or responsible for the accident in a case of collision, obviously the amount of compensation shall have to be sliced down in proportion to the extent of the fault on the part of the deceased driver. Therefore also, the contention that the insured and the insurer of the Fiat Car, which was driven by the deceased, at the time of accident with the S. T. Bus, are the parties without whose presence the Court is said to be unable to effectively and completely resolve or adjudicate upon the disputed issues, cannot be accepted. ( 5 ) UPON consideration of the aforesaid facts and on examination of the relevant proposition of law, this Court is fully satisfied that the revision on hand merits only rejection. Accordingly, it is rejected. Obviously, the interim relief granted by this Court at the time of admission of this revision application shall stand vacated. No order as to costs. .