1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5499 OF 2009 Ayodhya w/o Mohan Patil, Age: 50 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Talni, Tq. Ausa, Dist.Latur. .. Petitioner Versus Smt. Mahananda w/o Baswaraj Harsure, Age: 41 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Usturi, Tq.Nilanga, Dist. Latur & Ors. .. Respondents ... Mr. Ram Deshpande, Advocate holding for Mr. S.V. Warad, Advocate for petitioners. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 2 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 01-07-2009 passed by the Member, M.A.C.T. Latur below Exh.46 in M.A.C.P. No.173/2002. 3. A few facts of the matter are as under. . Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 - original claimants filed M.A.C.P. No. 173/2002 against the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in the Court of M.A.C.T. and District Judge,Latur claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The petitioner preferred application dated 15-05-2009 below Exh. 46 requesting the Tribunal to direct respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to join one Sow. Kamalbai w/o Kishanrao Bankar r/o Opp. Municipal Council Ausa Dist. Latur as a party respondent in M.A.C.P. No. 173/2002. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the vehicle involved in the accident i.e. tractor and trolley sold by him to Kamalbai w/o 3 Kishanrao Bankar on 19-10-1994 for a consideration of Rs.95,000/- and handed over the possession to her. He further submitted that Kamalbai is the registered owner of tractor and trolley and therefore, it is necessary to join her as party respondent in M.A.C.P. No. 173/2002. 5. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 submitted their Say on 01-07-2009 stating that they are not interested to join Sow. Kamalbai w/o Kishanrao Bankar as respondent in their petition. They further submitted that the registered owner is only responsible for the compensation as per Motor Vehicles Act. They further submitted that they are not concerned with the transaction between the registered owner and third person. 6. On the basis of submissions made by the original claimants, Tribunal rejected the petitioner's application for joining Sow. Kamalbai w/o Kishanrao Bankar as respondent in 4 M.A.C.P. No. 173/2002. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in view of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is the duty of the Court to see that the proper persons should be made as party respondents. He further relied on the authorities in the matter of Mathew Thankachan vs. V.G. Manoharan and others reported in A.I.R. 1998 Kerala 128 and in the matter of The Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Smt. Vimal Rai and others, reported in A.I.R. 1973 Delhi 115 ( V 60 C 33). Both the authorities are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the case of the petitioner is that said Kamalbai w/o Kishanrao Bankar is registered owner. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 - original claimants opposed the application filed by the petitioner at Exh. 46 on the ground that the petitioner only is registered owner of vehicle involved in accident. If as per the contention of original 5 claimants petitioner is only registered owner then it is not necessary to join third person as party respondent in claim petition. After all burden is on respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to prove that petitioner is registered owner of vehicle and he is only responsible for payment of compensation. 7. Considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances, Writ Petition is dismissed. [ K.K. TATED, J.] sut/SEP09/wp5499.09