1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6705 OF 2008 Shahuraj S/o.Rohidas Dolse PETITIONER VERSUS Vikram S/o.Ankush Gore and others RESPONDENTS Mr.D.M.Shinde, advocate for petitioner Mr.S.N.Morampalle, advocate for respondent no.1 Respondent no.2 absent even though duly served. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 22/06/2009 PER COURT : 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner who is arrayed as respondent no.1 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.227/2007 has challenged the order passed below Exh.14 by The Ad-hoc District Judge-1 and Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Latur, vide his order dated 19/06/2008, by which order learned Member/Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Latur has rejected the application of the petitioner, who had applied for deletion of his name from the accident claim petition. 2. Heard advocate for petitioner followed by the arguments of 2 learned advocate for respondent no.1 in the writ petition. Respondent no.2 absent even though duly served. According to learned advocate appearing for the petitioner the auto rikshaw bearing no.MH-24-J-646 was originally owned by him, but under the agreement dated 06/07/2006, it was sold to the first respondent in the writ petition, and thereafter the auto rikshaw met with an accident on 19/09/2006 in which the respondent no.2 to the present writ petition sustained injuries and has filed the Accident Claim Petition before the M.A.C.T. Latur. According to him, as the auto rikshaw was transferred to the first respondent in the writ petition, said auto rikshaw met with an accident prior to he ceased to be the owner of the said auto rikshaw and hence his name be deleted from the Accident Claim petition being before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Latur. 3. Considering the submissions across the bar, perused section 50(1)(2) of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Hereafter referred to as “the Act”) which speaks about the transfer of ownership of the vehicle. Then section 64 of the Act which speaks about the power of the Central Government to make the rules and section 82 of the Act which speaks about the transfer of permit of the vehicle in question. Section 64(k) of the said Act states that the form in which and the manner in which the intimation of transfer of ownership shall be made under sub section 1 of section 50 or under sub section 2 of section 50 and the documents to be submitted alongwith the application. This procedure is laid down about how to transfer the 3 vehicle by the owner of the vehicle registered with the RTO authorities. Admittedly, and as per the record stands as it is as on today, the registration certificate of the vehicle in question stood in the name of the petitioner applicant. The permit also stood in his name. Then the fact is clear if on the date of accident, the registration certificate and the tax certificate stood in the name of petitioner applicant, then as per the record of the RTO, still the petitioner applicant is the owner of the vehicle unless the vehicle is legally transferred in the name of 1st respondent as required to be transferred under the provisions of the The Motor Vehicles Act and unless otherwise stands proved as required to be proved, the ownership can not be said to be transferred from the name of the petitioner applicant to the first respondent in the writ petition. Considering this legal provision under the Motor VehicleS Act and admittedly no such attempts are made on behalf of the petitioner applicant about the transfer of vehicle in the name of the first respondent, then even though the order of the Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Latur is not happily worded, can not be said at fault by rejecting the application. In the premise, the writ petition is devoid of any merit, hence rejected in limine at the stage of admission itself. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/wp6705-08