1 7 fa.361.01 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 361 OF 2001 The Controller of Vehicles, Maharashtra State Electricity Board. ... Appellant Versus Sou. Chandrabhaga Bhairu Kale and others. ... Respondents ----- Ms. A.R.S.Baxi for the Appellant. Mr. U.B.Nighot for Respondent No.1. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 21 st December, 2010. JUDGMENT: 1 Taken up for final hearing. 2 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant. 3 The challenge by Appellant (Controller of Vehicles of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board) is to the judgment and award dated 18 th December, 2007 passed by the leaned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on a claim petition under Section 140 of the Motor 2 7 fa.361.01 Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act“). The Appellant and the insurer of the Appellant are held liable to pay compensation to the claimant, who is the injured person. 4 The present Appellant is the 2 nd opponent to the claim petition filed by the 1 st respondent. There does not appear to be any dispute regarding the factum of accident and the involvement of jeep No. MHZ – 337 in the accident. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant is that though the jeep was initially owned by the Appellant, the same was sold in public auction to the Respondent No. 5 herein. It is contended that the sale was completed before the date of accident. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the 5 th respondent is the auction purchaser and on the date of accident, the Appellant was not the owner. 5 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The scope of adjudication in the claim petition under Section 140 of the said Act is very limited. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is that though the 5 th respondent agreed to purchase the jeep at the Rate of Rs.50,200/-, full price was not paid and hence the vehicle was not transferred in the record of the RTO in the name of the purchaser. The record of the RTO shows that on the date of accident, the present Appellant continued to be the owner of the jeep and that the director of the insurance was shown as insurer of the jeep. Considering the fact that on the date on which 3 7 fa.361.01 accident occurred, the Appellant was shown as owner, it is not possible to find any fault with the impugned judgment and award. 6 Notwithstanding the impugned judgment and award and confirmation thereof by this Court, it will be open to the Appellant to agitate the issue of ownership in the main claim petition, if the same is pending. The said issue shall be decided on its own merits without being influenced by this judgment. 7 Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 8 The amount deposited by the Appellant in this Court with accrued interest shall be transfered to the concerned Tribunal and the concerned Tribunal will pass order regarding disbursement and/or the withdrawal of the said amount after hearing the parties. 9 Civil Application No. 1829 of 2001 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. [ A.S.OKA, J ]