IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.3822 OF 2004 PETITION NO.3822 OF 2004 PETITION NO.3822 OF 2004 Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Hospital. . Kamathe, Navi Mumbai ...Petitioner V/s. Supriya Sidhartha Kharvatekar & Ors. ...Respondents Mrs.Jyoti Pawar for the Petitioner. Mr.G.H. Keluskar for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. Mr.P.B. Naiknaware for Respondent No.5. CORAM CORAM CORAM : SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. : SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. : SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE DATE DATE : 11TH NOVEMBER, 2008. : 11TH NOVEMBER, 2008. : 11TH NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai on 15th April, 2004. By this order the Tribunal has directed that the Award in M.A.C.T. Application No.2115 of 1995 passed on 3rd April, 2003 be executed against the petitioner. 2. The claimants i.e. respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 have filed the aforesaid application for compensation after the death of Siddharth Govind Kharvatkar in the motor vehicle accident on 23rd February, 1995. He was knocked down by an ambulance driven by a person who claimed to be an employee of the petitioner. The petitioner was not a party to the claim application. Therefore, the Award was not directed against the petitioner. 3. It was only after eight years that an application was made by the claimants to join the petitioner as a party and to execute the Award against it. The petitioner has deposited the amount of Rs.63,562/- in the Tribunal pursuant to the order in the proceedings under Section 140 of the M.A.C.T. Act. However, it is seen from the record that the petitioner was not made a party to the proceedings at any point of time. The claimants, therefore, made an application before the Tribunal that the Award also should be executed against the petitioner. The Tribunal has not considered the fact that the petitioner was not a party to the claim application and therefore the petitioner had no opportunity to dispute the claim. The Tribunal also has not taken note of the fact that the Driver of the ambulance has stated in the F.I.R. that he was plying an ambulance of the M.G.M. Hospital. There is no material on record to show that in fact the MGM Hospital i.e. the petitioner herein was made a party to the claim application as the owner of the offending vehicle. In fact, the General Secretary of All India HP SC/ST Employees Welfare Association was the opposite party before the Tribunal in the claim application, as the owner of the vehicle. 4. In my opinion, the order of the Tribunal must be set aside. The recovery certificate issued against the petitioner is set aside. It is made clear that the recovery certificate issued against the opposite party to the claim application will continue and may be executed. 5. The Petition is allowed accordingly.