This Original Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P10 order dated 31.05.2016 passed in I.A.No.2556 of 2016 in O.P.(MV) No.10 of 2013 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the petition for impleading the 4th respondent herein as the additional 4th respondent in the Claim Petition before the Tribunal. Material facts for the disposal of the original petition are as follows:

2. Petitioner is the 1st respondent in O.P.(MV) No.10/2013 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam [hereinafter called 'the Tribunal']. Claim petition is filed by the 1st respondent seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident on 11.08.2012, when the motor cycle on which the 1st respondent was travelling as a pillion rider, hit on an electric post. Petitioner appeared and filed a written statement contending that the said vehicle was sold by him on 20.05.2011. The Insurance Company denied the liability as the vehicle was covered by an "Act only Policy", which does not cover the pillion rider. On enquiry, petitioner got the materials such as police reports, 'kaichittu' based on which the motor cycle was released after the accident, statements of respondents 1, 3 and 4 herein, registration particulars of the motor cycle etc., to indicate that at the time of accident, motor cycle was under the ownership and possession of the 4th respondent.

3. Matters being so, petitioner filed I.A.No.2556/2016 seeking impleadment of the 4th respondent in the party array. However, the Tribunal vide Ext.P10 order dismissed the said application by holding that the 4th respondent is not a necessary party to the proceedings. It is thus challenging Ext.P10 order, petitioner has filed this Original Petition.

4. Respondents 3 and 4 have filed a counter affidavit to the Original Petition contending that the 3rd respondent was in no way connected with the case except that on the basis of a 'kaichittu' (receipt) signed by him, police had released the vehicle after the incident to the 4th respondent who is the brother of the 3rd respondent. According to the said respondents, though the 4th respondent was in possession of the vehicle, the registered owner of the vehicle is the petitioner as per the records of the Motor Vehicles authority. That being the position, petitioner is liable for all liabilities arising out of the accident including compensation if any. Therefore, it is contended that, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the impleading application filed by the petitioner seeking to implead the 4th respondent.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respective counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings.

6. The thrust of the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that, at the time of accident, petitioner had no manner of control over the offending vehicle. Possession of the vehicle was transferred by the petitioner when the vehicle was sold. Therefore, petitioner did not have any manner of liability since he was not the actual owner at the time of accident. It is also contended that, merely because necessary application was not preferred before the Motor Vehicles authority to transfer the registration of the vehicle to the name of the 4th respondent, was not an enabling circumstance for the 4th respondent to seek transfer of the vehicle to his name.

7. Learned counsel has also invited my attention to a judgment of this Court in 'Sreekumar v. Abdeen & others' [2013 (3) KLT 542], wherein this Court had occasion to consider a similar circumstance, taking into account judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court, and held that in view of Sec.175 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the inter se dispute in respect of transfer of the vehicle is to be decided by the Tribunal. It was also held that, if it is found that there was a transfer of the vehicle pr