Hon'ble LODHA, J.—This writ petition is directed against order dated 20.4.09 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur whereby an application preferred by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 CPC for deleting their names from the array of the respondents, stands rejected.

2. The respondent no. 4 to 8 have preferred an application u/s 166, 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “the Act”) before the tribunal inter alia against the petitioners claiming compensation on account of death of their husband/father in an accident occurred on 8.10.05 . The vehicle i.e. Tractor No. RJ-27/R/1887 involved in accident is registered in the name of the petitioners therefore, they have been impleaded in the claim petition as respondents-non claimants.

3. The petitioners preferred an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC for deleting their names from the array of the respondents on the ground that as on the date of the accident they were not owner of the vehicle inasmuch as, they had sold the vehicle to the respondent no. 3 herein on 23.10.04 and the relevant forms i.e. Form No.29 and 30 for the transfer of the vehicle were also handed over to the purchaser, the respondent no. 3 herein, on 5.11.04. The petitioner submitted before the tribunal that since the sale of the vehicle by the petitioners to the respondent no. 3 herein is not in dispute therefore, no liability can be fastened upon them as the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and they cannot be compelled to contest the claim petition. It was submitted that even after lapse of one year from the date of transfer if the purchaser has not got the vehicle registered in his name then the petitioners cannot be made to suffer on the ground that they continue to be registered owner of the vehicle .

4. The tribunal has rejected the application holding that the fact that transfer of the vehicle by the petitioners to the respondent no. 3 herein and handing over of the possession of the vehicle is in dispute therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioners have no liability as a registered owner of the vehicle.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned tribunal has seriously erred in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners on the ground that the transfer of the vehicle and handing over of the possession thereof is in dispute. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners had completed the legal formalities as prescribed under the law for transfer of the vehicle inasmuch as From No. 29 and 30 duly filled and signed were handed over by them to the transferee-respondent no.3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that it was duty of the transferee to get the vehicle registered in their name. The learned counsel submitted that admittedly as on the date of the accident the vehicle was in possession of the respondent no.3 therefore, no liability whatsoever can be fastened upon the petitioners and they could not have been impleaded as respondents-non claimants in the claim petition preferred before the learned tribunal. In support of his contention the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Godwari Finance Co. (M/s.) vs. Degla Satyanarayanamma”, ACTC 2008(2), 625 and “National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Deepa Devi & Ors.”, ACTC 2008(1), 1 and a Bench decision of this court in the matter of “Om Prakash vs. Mool Chand & Ors.”, ACTC 2008(1), 489.

6. In Om Prakash's case (supra), a Bench of this Court while considering the question as to whether a person who is not the registered owner of the vehicle cannot be held liable for compensation observed:

“8. The provisions relating to compensation in accident cases are in the nature of beneficial legislation for the benefit of the victims of the motor accidents and the victim cannot be left in the lurch for failure of the transferee to get the ownership transferred in his name. The le

Click Here to Read the rest of this document