kbp 1 8074-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8074 OF 2009 Anil Appasaheb Chakote ..Petitioner Vs. Tolaram Poma Pawar and ors. ..Respondents ......... Mr.S.S.Shah, for petitioner. ....... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.. DATE : 23 rd SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1] The petitioner is the original opponent to a claim petition filed by the first respondent under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1966. An award for payment of compensation has been made against the petitioner. In execution of the said award the petitioner purported to invoke Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and raised various objections. The first prayer in the said application was that the execution application be dismissed and the second prayer was that the objections raised by the petitioners should be adjudicated upon. By the impugned order the said application has been rejected. 2] After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that no case for interference is made out. The petitioner has not contested the claim petition filed by the first respondent in which the award has been made. In substance, the contention raised in the application on which the impugned order has been passed, is that the petitioner is not the owner of the offending vehicle. Another contention is that notice of the claim petition was not served to the petitioner. The learned Member of the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the kbp 2 8074-09.sxw application as the said contentions cannot be gone into under Section 47 of the said Code. Learned Member has observed that the remedy of the petitioner was to challenge the award. 3] The learned Member of the Tribunal is right. No case is made out for interference. Writ Petition is rejected. ( A.S.OKA, J. )