JUDGMENT : CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J. 1. The present petition is maintained by the petitioner, who is respondent No. 3 before the learned Court below (hereinafter referred to as =the petitioner'), against the order of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., passed in MACP No. 40G/II/08, dated 12.05.2016, whereby the learned Court dismissed the applications of the petitioner herein filed under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC and under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, seeking impleadment of ICIC Lombard Geneal Insurance Company Limited and also seeking permission to file additional reply to the petition filed by the respondents herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Act?). 2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to the present petition are that respondents No. 1 to 3 herein have maintained a petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation in lieu of death of Dr. Naveen Sood (husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents No. 2 and 3 herein), who died on 28.08.2007 in an accident, in which vehicle (Truck) bearing registration No. HP-63-4515 was involved. As per the petitioner, during the pendency of the petition under Section 166 of the Act, it was unearthed that vehicle in question was already insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company. Therefore, the petitioner herein, being an insurance company, moved an application under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to file additional reply to the petition and it is alleged that respondent No. 4 herein (owner of the vehicle), by playing fraud upon the petitioner, got another insurance policy issued from the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner moved another application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for impleading M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited as party in the claim petition. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal below decided both these applications with a consolidated order dated 12.05.2016, whereby both these applications were dismissed, hence the present petition. 3. Subsequently, the petitioner moved another application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for impleading M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited as party in the claim petition. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal below decided both these applications with a consolidated order dated 12.05.2016, whereby both these applications were dismissed, hence the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Bajaj Insurance Company has argued that ICICI Lombard Insurance Company is a necessary party, as the said Insurance Company has already insured the vehicle of respondent No. 4 (owner of the vehicle) and the learned Court below has fallen in error in dismissing both the applications by ignoring the fact that when it came to the notice of the petitioner that the vehicle was insured earlier also. Further argued that the learned Court below should have allowed both the applications. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has argued that ICICI Lombard Insurance Company did not insure the vehicle of respondent No. 4 as the insurance policy was cancelled after giving due notice to respondent No. 4, as the cheque presented for premium of the policy was dishonoured and only thereafter the vehicle was insured with the present petitioner. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that these facts will be decided only if the applications of the petitioner are allowed and the new facts come on record after impleading the ICICI Lombard Insurance Company as party-respondent. 4. To appreciate the arguments of the parties, I have gone through the record in detail. 5. Firstly, it is clear that it is for the petitioner to choose as to against whom he wants to lay his claim. If fraud has been played on the petitioner, as alleged by the petitioner, the said fact would be required to be considered and adjudicated upon in the claim petition. Whether the petitioner has insured the vehicle on its own or the insurance policy was obtained by fraud played by respondent No. 4, is a matter which is under adjudication before the Court below, as the present petitioner is contesting the petition from the very beginning. Whether the petitioner has insured the vehicle on its own or the insurance policy was obtained by fraud played by respondent No. 4, is a matter which is under adjudication before the Court below, as the present petitioner is contesting the petition from the very beginning. In reply to the applications, respondent No. 4-owner has taken a plea that the vehicle could not be plied earlier due to the domestic problem and when it was plied by engaging a new driver, it was again insured with respondent No. 4, being a new vehicle. Even if the owner has insured the vehicle with two insurance companies, either of the insurance company cannot say that it has not insured the vehicle. When the vehicle was insured, it was insured completely by the insurance company knowing fully well the value of the vehicle. There is no condition pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the contract of insurance demonstrates that the vehicle cannot be insured, if it is already insured with another company. Further it is for the claimants to choose as to against whom they wanted to pursue the petition. Therefore, I find no infirmity with the order passed by the learned Court below. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, titled as United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajendra Singh and others, (2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 581, wherein it has been held as under: ?11. Thus the Tribunal refused to open the door to the appellant Company as the High Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction which is almost plenary for which no statutory constrictions could possibly be imposed. If a party complaining of fraud having been practiced on him as well as on the court by another party resulting in a decree, cannot avail himself of the remedy of review or even the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, what else is the alternative remedy for him? Is he to surrender to the product of the fraud and thereby became a conduit to enrich the impostor unjustly? Learned Single Judge who indicated some other alternative remedy did not unfortunately spell out what is the other remedy which the appellant Insurance Company could pursue.? 7. Is he to surrender to the product of the fraud and thereby became a conduit to enrich the impostor unjustly? Learned Single Judge who indicated some other alternative remedy did not unfortunately spell out what is the other remedy which the appellant Insurance Company could pursue.? 7. The judgment, as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the petitioner has failed to show how fraud has been committed upon it. The petitioner has issued the insurance policy to respondent No. 4-owner knowing fully well that the truck is in existence and has insured the same as per the insurance contract. 8. In these circumstances, this Court did not find that the petitioner has been able to show that the fraud has been committed. In view of the above, the judgment, as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 9. As has been held hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the order of the learned Court below is just, reasoned and after appreciating the facts which have come on record to their true perspective. The present petition, being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed, as also pending application (s), if any. 10. The observations made hereinabove will have no bearing on the merits of the main claim petition.