vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8018 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.8018 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.8018 OF 2008 M/s.Petron Civil Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. Tarabai Baburao Taware & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.S. Bhide for Petitioner Mr.M.B. Kotak for Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: APRIL 21, 2009 APRIL 21, 2009 APRIL 21, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The name of Respondent No.2 has been deleted by an order passed today in the Civil Application. 3. The petitioner challenges the order passed on 11.7.2008 by Member, Maharashtra Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai in Miscellaneous Application No.109 of 2006 in Original Application No.2687 of 2004. By this application, the Petitioner prayed that since it had sold the vehicle in question before the date of the accident, the transferee should be brought on record as a party opponent to the claim application. The Tribunal has rejected the application on the ground that under Order 1 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, objections : 2 : regarding non-joinder or mis-joinder of the parties should have been taken at the earliest. The Tribunal was of the view that since the objections were not raised immediately after the claim petition was filed, the application was required to be rejected. 4. Rule 276 of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules stipulates that certain provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to the proceedings before the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal. However, the provisions mentioned do not include Order 1 Rule 13 of the CPC. Therefore, the ground on which the Miscellaneous application has been rejected is incorrect. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that although the Petitioner is the registered owner, the petitioner had in fact transferred the vehicle to some other person before the accident occurred and therefore, it is necessary to bring on record the transferee of the vehicle. It is submitted that the liability of the Petitioner and the transferee would then be decided by the Court. Admittedly, the vehicle was not insured at the relevant time. Several judgments have been cited by the learned advocate for the Petitioner in support of his contention that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the application filed by the Petitioner. : 3 : 6. The learned advocate for the Respondents submits that the Petitioner ought to have filed an appeal to challenge the order passed in respect of the application filed u/s 140, granting the no fault liability. He submits that rather than following that procedure, the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court by way of a writ petition. He further submits that several judgments of the Supreme court and various High Courts indicate that only the owner needs to be joined as a party to the claim petition and not a transferee. He points out that after 1988, the definition of "owner" has been amended and the owner now means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered. He therefore submits that since admittedly the motor vehicle stands registered in the name of the petitioner, there is no need to implead the transferee as a party. He further submits that the claimants should not be put through the agony of a delayed decision in their claim petition since in any event, the petitioner had accepted the liability with respect to the order in the application filed under section 140 of the Act. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Satyadhyan Ghosai & Ors. v/s. Smt. Deorjin & Ors., AIR 1960 SC 941 AIR 1960 SC 941 AIR 1960 SC 941 in support of his submission. The Supreme Court has, in this case, held "the principle of res judicata applies also as between two stages in the : 4 : same litigation to this extent that a court whether the trial Court or the higher court having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way will not allow the parties to reagitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings". 7. The first submission of the learned advocate for the respondent that an appeal ought to have been filed is without merit. The petitioner has not impugned the order with respect to the no fault liability. The challenge is only to the order passed in the miscellaneous application No.109 of 2006. An appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act is certainly not maintainable against an order refusing to permit impleadment of a party. 8. The second contention of the learned advocate for the respondents that transferee need not be made a party in view of the amendment to the Motor Vehicles ACt also is without substance. The Tribunal can always decide who is the real owner of the vehicle in question. However, before doing that it would be necessary to join the transferee as a party to the claim application. Merely because the definition indicates that the person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered is the owner it would not mean that a transferee should not be joined as a party to the claim petition. It would be : 5 : for the Tribunal to assess whether the transferee is liable, either jointly and/or severally for the claim made by the petitioners. 9. The next submission of the learned advocate for the respondents that in view of the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of Satyadhyan Ghosai (supra), the Petitioner cannot disown the liability in the main claim application is premature. At this stage it is not necessary to ascertain whether the petitioner is liable for the accident which occurred. That would be decided by the Tribunal at the trial. However, while deciding the issue the Tribunal can always consider the liability in the light of the fact that the petitioner has already deposited the amount granted u/s 140 of the Act. 10. In my opinion, therefore, the Tribunal has erred in refusing the application. The impugned order is set aside. Writ Petition is therefore allowed. 11. The claimants are directed to join the transferee as a party to the claim application within a period of two weeks from today. The petitioner shall supply the address of the transferee immediately to the claimants in order to facilitate the joining of the transferee as a party to the claim petition. It is made clear that the name of the petitioner is not deleted : 6 : from the array of the parties. 12. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.