ORDER : K.N. Phaneendra, J. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both parties. Perused the order impugned under the writ petition. 2. The respondent-insurance company has contested the proceedings in M.V.C. No. 141/2013, on the file of Addl. District Judge and MACT, Gadag, by filing objections to the petition filed by the claimants i.e., the respondents Nos. 1 to 5. During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent-insurance company filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with section 151 of CPC seeking impleadment of respondent No. 6 Mr. Venkatesh as one of the parties to the proceedings. 3. It is the urge of the respondent insurance company in the objections filed to the main petition at paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 that, there was no accident as such taken place as pleaded by the claimants and it is also urged that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle (involved in the alleged accident) and as well as the deceased. Further it is also urged that though there was no accident, a false case has been created for the purpose of engulfing the compensation from the insurance company. Therefore on the basis of such plea they filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with section 151 of CPC seeking impleadment of the rider of the said motorcycle as a necessary party in the proceedings. 4. The said application was objected by the other side stating that there is no specific plea taken by the insurance company stating that the respondent No. 6 is a proper and necessary party to the proceedings and the matter is of the year 2013 and the application was belatedly filed on 15.12.2015 after lapse of two years. Therefore on these grounds the respondents have sought for dismissal of the said application. 5. The trial Court considered the objections filed and it is stated that the driver is not a necessary party as the liability of the owner as 'master' and the rider or the 'driver' is joint and several. Therefore once the owner is made as a party, there is no need for the claimants to implead the driver as one of the parties. On such analysis the trial Court has dismissed the said application. 6. Therefore once the owner is made as a party, there is no need for the claimants to implead the driver as one of the parties. On such analysis the trial Court has dismissed the said application. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has in this context relied upon a decision of the Apex Court, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2545 , between Machindranath Kernath Kasar v. D.S. Mylarappa and Ors., wherein the Apex Court has made observation that the necessity of impleading the driver of the vehicle when contributory negligence is alleged is altogether different when no such allegations are made in the objections filed by the insurance company. It is also observed that it can't be a universal rule that in none of the cases the driver or a rider need be a party to the proceedings. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of the each case. One must look into the material on record, the pleadings of the parties and thereafter come to the conclusion that whether the participation of the rider or driver of the vehicle is necessary or not. 7. Applying the above said principle, to this particular case, this Court is of the opinion that, the Trial Court has not bestowed its attention with regard to the objections filed by the insurance company. It is specific plea taken by the insurance company that no such accident has taken place and a false case has been created in the name of the 6th respondent making him as the rider of the motorcycle and further the 2nd contention taken by the insurance company is that the deceased has also contributed negligence in this regard. Even if the claimant is able to prove the accident. These two contentions taken up by the insurance company in the main objection and as well as in the application have not been looked into and considered by the trial Court at all. 8. When the Court is called upon to give its opinion or finding with regard to the negligence of the deceased and as well as the rider of the motorcycle, the Court is bound to consider the said contention of the insurance company. Unless the Court comes to the conclusion that negligence is exclusively on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, it cannot appropriately grant compensation. Unless the Court comes to the conclusion that negligence is exclusively on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, it cannot appropriately grant compensation. Further, added to that, the insurance company has taken up the contention that no such accident has taken place and a false case has been created against the rider of the motorcycle. Then the burden is on the insurance company to establish that particular contention. 9. Under the above said circumstances, without there being a party, no finding can be given by the Court against such person without giving him any opportunity of hearing. When the matter is still pending before the trial Court, in order to avoid complexity in the matter and also the multiplicity of proceedings, the trial Court ought to have allowed the said application. Under the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has committed a serious error in dismissing the application. The said application deserves to be allowed. 10. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the order, dated 16.1.2016, passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge and MACT, Gadag, in M.V.C. No. 141/2013, on the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 read with section 151 of CPC is hereby set aside. Consequently the said application is hereby allowed. 11. The trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to implead the rider of the motorcycle as respondent No. 6 and thereafter dispose of the case, in accordance with law. As the matter is of the year 2013, both the parties are hereby directed to co-operate with the Trial Court to dispose of the said claim petition as expeditiously as possible, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.