The statutory liability of a registered owner under the Motor Vehicles Act for third-party claims is not absolved by a private sale agreement or a civil court decree for transfer of registration; such inter se arrangements do not override the welfare-oriented statutory scheme.

Order

By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed:-

a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 12.03.2026 (Annex-4) passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Hanumangarh in MAC Case no. 433/2015 (CIS no. 87/2015) may kindly be quashed and set aside and consequently the application (Annex-2) under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed in terms of its prayer clause. ...”

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner has challenging the order dated 12.03.2026 (Annexure-4) passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment of legal representatives of Late Sarabjeet Singh has been rejected.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a claim petition came to be filed by the respondent-claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of death of one Ganesh Dutt in an accident dated 20.01.2013 involving vehicle bearing registration No. PB-02-AE-1515. In the said claim petition, the present petitioner was impleaded as a party in the capacity of registered owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. PB-02-AE-1515. Upon appearance, the petitioner filed his reply to the claim petition wherein he specifically took a defence that prior to the accident, the vehicle had been sold to one Sarabjeet Singh on 30.12.2011 and possession thereof had been handed over to him. It was further averred that the petitioner had instituted a civil suit for mandatory injunction before the competent Civil Court at Nakodar, District Jalandhar, bearing No.148/2021 titled “Pal Singh vs. Sarabjeet Singh (deceased) & Ors” which culminated the said suit in a judgment and decree dated 07.07.2025, (Annexure-1) whereby a decree of mandatory injunction was passed directing the legal representatives of Sarabjeet Singh to get the vehicle registered in their names within a stipulated period.

On the strength of the said plea, the petitioner preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC before the learned Tribunal stating that on the date of the accident i.e. 20.01.2013, the vehicle was not in his possession but was in possession and control of Sarabjeet Singh, and therefore, seeking impleadment of the legal representatives of deceased Sarabjeet Singh as party respondents and further prayed for deletion of his own name from the array of parties. However, the learned Tribunal vide order dated 12.03.2026 (Annexure- 4) rejected the said application while observing that the petitioner continues to be the registered owner of the vehicle and no material has been placed on record to show transfer of registration in favour of Sarabjeet Singh and being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed a serious error in rejecting the application inasmuch as it has failed to consider the effect of the civil court judgment and decree dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure-1), which establishes that the vehicle had already been sold to Sarabjeet Singh prior to the accident. It is submitted that on the date of the accident, the vehicle was in possession and control of Sarabjeet Singh and therefore, his legal representatives are necessary parties for effective adjudication of the claim petition. It is further contended that the Tribunal has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

Learned counsel further submitted that the legal representatives of deceased Sarabjeet Singh are necessary parties for effective adjudication, as the liability, if any, would lie upon the person in possession and control of the vehicle at the relevant time, and that the le