1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1724/2008 (Priyavrat Vs. Het Ram & ors.) Date of Order :: 10th April 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Dr.Sachin Acharya for the petitioner None present for the respondents ... BY THE COURT: The petitioner, facing the claim for compensation as filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and having been arrayed as non-applicant in his capacity as registered owner of the offending vehicle, by way of this writ petition seeks to assail the order 06.02.2008 as passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sriganganagar rejecting his application for framing of an additional issue on the fact that the vehicle in question was transferred by him on 09.09.2002 to the non- applicant No.1 (arrayed as non-applicant in his capacity as driver of the offending vehicle) before the date of accident i.e., 01.04.2003. The learned Tribunal has proceeded to reject the application as moved by the petitioner fundamentally on the consideration that the petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence in support of his plea of having transferred the vehicle and, therefore, the contentions as put 2 forward do not give rise to any material proposition of fact. It is contended that the plea as taken by the petitioner in his written statement would be substantiated by way of evidence but an issue relating to the fact of transfer of vehicle directly arise for consideration and ought to have been framed. Learned counsel has also referred to the provisions as contained in Rule 10.10 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 requiring the Tribunal to frame the issue while dealing with claim for compensation. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having examined the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order so as to consider interference in writ jurisdiction. The Tribunal is required to frame an issue upon which the right decision of the case appears it to depend while considering the claim for compensation. The Tribunal has framed relevant issues as arising for determination in the present case. So far the bald allegation of transfer of the vehicle is concerned, if the same was not supported even by primary evidence, the Tribunal cannot be faulted in having not accepted the application of the petitioner for framing of an issue in that regard. How the claim application is to be proceeded with and to be decided finally; and ultimately what relief is to be granted 3 are the matters to be considered by the learned Tribunal in accordance with law. For the purpose of this writ petition, suffice is to say that this Court does not find any jurisdictional error in the order impugned. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. MK