Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CRA/194/2006 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 194 of 2006
==========================================
KASHYAP
MUKUNDBHAI DOSHI - Applicant(s)
Versus
ARJANBHAI
HIRABHAI & 2 - Opponent(s)
==========================================
Appearance
:
MR MB GOHIL
for Applicant(s) : 1,
NOTICE UNSERVED for Opponent(s)
: 1,
MR SATYEN B RAWAL for Opponent(s) : 2,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS
for Opponent(s) : 3,
==========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 01/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. By way of this application
under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, the applicant-original
opponent no. 1 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 363/2005 has
prayed for appropriate writ, order or direction and to quash and set
aside the order passed below Exh. 17 dated 15/06/2006 by the learned
Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Surendranagar in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No. 363/2005 by which the learned tribunal
has rejected the application submitted by the applicant for deletion
of his name from Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 363/2005.
2. It is the contention on
behalf of the applicant that prior to the accident in question, the
applicant had already transferred the vehicle in question in favour
of respondent no. 2 and necessary intimation was also sent to the
RTO. It is submitted by him that therefore there will not be any
liability on the part of the applicant to pay the compensation so far
as the accident in question is concerned. He has heavily relied upon
the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s
KAUSHIK TRANSPORT Co. & ORS Vs STATE OF GUJARAT & Ors
reported in 1990 (1) GLH 38 and in the case of CHHEDI
PRASAD Vs KAMRUNNISHA AND ANR reported in 2003 ACJ 781
and, therefore, it is requested to allow the present Civil Revision
Application.
3. On the other hand, Shri
Satyan B. Rawal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent
no. 2 has submitted that on the day on which the accident took place,
name of the applicant was mentioned as registered owner in the RTO
Book and, therefore, whether the applicant would be liable to make
good the award on the ground that he has already sold the vehicle in
question prior to the accident in question is his defence, which is
to be considered by the learned trial Court. It is therefore
submitted that at this stage it will not be appropriate to delete the
applicant from the proceedings.
4. Heard the learned advocates
appearing on behalf of the respective parties. It prima facie
appears and as per the contention on behalf of the applicant that he
has already sold the vehicle in question to respondent no. 2, prior
to the accident in question and necessary intimation was also given
to registered authority, RTO. However the fact remains that name of
the applicant continues in the RTO record as registered owner. It is
the defence of the applicant that he will not be liable to pay any
compensation if any award is passed as he has already sold the
vehicle in question to respondent no. 2. Therefore, at this stage,
it will not be appropriate to delete the name of the applicant from
the aforesaid Motor Accident Claim Petition.
5. The judgement upon which
reliance has been placed by the learned advocate for the applicant
will not be helpful to the applicant at this stage. On pleadings,
appropriate evidence and the judgemnet upon which reliance has been
placed, might be helpful to the applicant. However, at this stage,
name of the applicant is not required to be deleted from the
proceedings. It is to be noted that no order has been passed by the
learned tribunal till date. As and when such an application is taken
up for hearing, it will be open for the applicant to raise such
contention and the same shall be considered in accordance with law
and on its own merits. However, considering the order passed by the
learned tribunal rejecting the application of the applicant to delete
his name from the proceedings, at this stage, it cannot be said to be
illegal and/or it cannot be said that the learned tribunal has
committed an error.
6. Under the circumstances and
in the facts and circumstances of the case, the present Civil
Revision Application is dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(M.R. SHAH, J.)
siji
Top