3=5^ r^||A||^, (4Tflyll<i, i<K?»Wy NIMdl *NI* sn^r^ra; (4<i?l<(<«) sTtorqnfe'iw WffSn^Ta^IRi' TOiwtfesa^T PETn'IONER: RESPONDENTS: tbWld'iili »fWc(i»f.fe^^RSR ^; ajfiCT 311^% 3 Bhagjraltoi, S/o Bishat Sataami, ^ed about 35 years, R/o Vfflagc Pendri. Police Station Suhete, District Raiptir (C.G.) (Owner aad Drlver of the offendlag veUcle i.e. Tractor &> Trotley, un»e^»te»edMahtadra Tractor 275/DJ.) Versus - Kodan Sataami, S/o Bodhwa Sataami, aged about 70 years; Smt. Sukalhia Bai, W/o Kodan Satnami, aged about 60 years; Both R/o Village Pendri, PoUcc Station Suhela, District Ralpur (Claltnanfcs) The Manager, Ifco Tokjyo General luszu-aace Company Limited, A-22, Sector-1, Shaakamagar, Raipur(C.G.) (lasiuer) The Dealer, Arua Tradc Consigas, Devpuri, Raipur (C.G.) The Manager, Bajaj Alliaace Insuraace Compaay Umited, E.G. Plaza, Branch SIiromohaa Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri, Raipyi (C.G.) (Non-appUcants) 3(1^1W M'# ^iqT SIR^I sB*i]'sn 3=5^ ^||A||^, t4Tntill<i, fa^KHy 03. P-.7.2 .bl«i<-t«1-<MWiA'-?.^ iJM^K ^aifOTsii^T {Writ petition under Ardcle 221 Sinffl®Bench: Hoa'M ofthe Constitution oflndia, 1950} M».Justice L.C. Bhadoo 3-1-2008 Mr. Pravia Kumar Tulsiy^n, counsel for the pctitioner. Heard on admission. The petitioner has filed fl^is writ petition uader Ardcle 227 of the Constitution of Iiidia questi<>rung legality and correctaess oftfae order dated 20-9-2007 pass Tribunal has rejected the appli sd by fhe 2nd Additfonal Motor Accidents Claiins Tribunal, Bsfloda Bazaar, whereby fhe teamed ^•ation of the petitioner filed under Order 1 Rulc 13 & Order 14 R-a^e 5 ofthe C.P.C. for dismassing the claim, pcttdon of the clannants |for not joining M/ s. Arun Tractors and M/s. Mahiadra & MahindrE| in fhe array ofthc respondents. Lcamed counsel for the tietitioner aubmite fhat the tractor which was purchased by the t>etitioner hercin fi'om M/s. Arun Tractors inet wifh an accidenD accident one lady labour namcy Raj Kunaari have preferred a considcration before fhe 2nd A on 22nd Jaauaiy, 2005, in that , Raj Kiunari died and the heirs of clann petition which is pending iditional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazaar. He ^urther subntits fhat even fhough possession of said tractor was ^iven to the petitioner hercin, but papers were not teansferred pn the naiuc of fhe petitioner, fherefore, on the date ofacciden^, fhe petitionerwas not the owaer of fhe tractor. In fhe Gircu|mstances, the petitioner herein preferred an appllcation under 3rder 1 Rule 10 offhe C.P.C. for addic^ M/s. Arun Tractors an4 M/s. Mahiadra & Mahindra as 3 .-^"Si i ? ^.^s^ 1 '"<S8Sfit-i '%,. "!y ^? '•s^.. ''ew ^s'' '•'•Ss^e-. 'l':S:.SSfsfs""''' 3il^i ^t ft;-li+, gqisn^iwiw ^^^nqT^T, ®rftW^,^Wy an^r iraq; (• •TOIiW^teiOT^I wfera^-wraf ^fest •rfw?n •^stiOT 3)1^1 respondents in the said claim|petttion, but fhat has been rejected, aa order under Section 140 <^f fhe Motor Vcluclcs Act, 1988 has been passed agatost the pet^tioner under the hcad crf 'no fanlt liabflity' and he has been diret;ted to pay no fault Uability ainount to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. against the said order directiii under no faiilt liabiUty, fhe i Lcamed counsel also subniits that g the petitioner to pay Rs.50,000/- letitioner has fifed a nusceBaaieous appeal on the ground that oi^ the date of accident fhe petitioner was not fhc owner of fhe tract^r. He further submlte that in repty to fhe claim petition an object|on to fhe effect fhat on tbe date of accident he was not fhe owner|of fhe tractor, has also been raised, but fhe leamcd Tribiuial has feiled to frame issue on ftiat count. The petttfoaer also filed an ap] the C.P.C. for disnussiag the d ilication iinder Order 1 Rule 13 of laiai of thc claiaaants as necessary party has not been arrayed i^i that petition and that has been rejected vkle the iinpugned ord^r. The issue raised by t^ie petitioaer hereia is fhat the petitjoner not being owner of fl^e tractor, no fault Uabittty amouat could not bave been nnposed jupon liim, has been raised in fhe iniscellancous appeal, fherefo|re, fhe appeBate Court has to consider that poiut whefher fh^ petittoner hei-ein is Uable to pay the said amount being omner 4>r not. If thc issue has not been fiaiaed, ifany order is passed a^alnst fhe petitioner holding hna as owner without fi-aming fhe issu ;, tf fhe petitioaer is prejudiced by that then he wiU be at liber^y to raise that point toefore fhe appellate Court Tf"^-< ^'•.^»^i'" TS^ ^ll^lci'*), giTlltt'lfi, R^IUy ......^.:..r.:.(S)..2.2^ 3D^?r TO% (•^?^ff: 311^1 ?it 1?;IW ^T-sn^iyMt^ TRIIW ^llttT 311^1 'biiici'il-i ^naf if.'fs^t <[°ih;it ^aiRnsntw Soma For the foregojng reason^ is not maiataiaable and fhe J-urisdictional error which jurtsdictioa undcr Article 2: Accoidingly, thc pctition is di^ costs. 14, I am of the wsvr fhat ftris petition ^rial Court has not committed aay c^tls upon fhis Conrt to invokc (7 of the Ctonstitutioa of India. ifetnissed in twrww. No order as to Consequently, I.A.No.l sljands disposed of. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge