0% HIGH CDURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (Art.227) No.699 of 2011 Petitioner Smt.Harbhajan Kaur Bhatia W/o. Non-applicant Kuiwant $ingh. aged about—48 years. R/o.Village-Kansabel, Tahsii Bagicha, Districtdashpur (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. Smt.V§ndheshwari Yadav W/o. Lt.Niyambar Yadav. aged about—26 years. 2. Minor Ku.Rinki Yadav D/o. Lt.Niyambar Yadav, aged about 60 years. 3. Minor Ku.Yashoda Yadav Dio. Lt.Niyambar Yadav, aged about 04 years. 4. Minor Ku.Jharna Yadav Die. Lt.Niyambar Yadav, aged about 02 years. Through Legal heir (Mother)- Smt.Vindheshwari Yadav W/o. Lt.Niyambar Yadav, aged about 26 years. 5. Smt.Urmila Bai W/o. Lingraj Yadav, aged about-40 years. All Rio. Mudapara, Tahsil-Pathalgaon, District-Jashpur (C.G.) 6. Umesh Yadav S/o. Purpomani Yadav aged about 20 years. Occupation Driver, R/o. VIH-Pakargaon. Tahsil- Pathalgaon, District—Jashpur (6.6.) (Writ Petition under Articie 227 of the Constitution of lndia) Mr.Abhishekh Saraf, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Khuntiya, counsel for respondents No.1 to 5. None present for respondent No.6. (SB: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) ORDER (15-11-2011) 1. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia the petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated O “X, (L; 15 11 2010 passed by the Additional Motor Accndent Cialms Tnbunal Jashpur m Cialm Case No 70/2007 whereby the application for impleading one person Le. allegedl purchaser of motor vehicle as a party has been dismissed. 2. l have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and other documents filed on behah‘ of the petitioner. 3. The present petitioner is registered owner of the vehicie, but he has filed appiication for impleading the person namely Narendra Kumar as a party on the ground that he has purchased the vehicle, although ownership has not been changed in the record of R.TVO., therefore, she is not liable and the alleged purchaser Narendra Kumar maybeliable for payment of compensation. 4. At present. the petitioner is registered owner and in case of proof such transaction iiability could not be fastened upon the petitioner and she may be absolved from the liability, but by dismissing the application the l Claims Tribunat has not committed any iltegality warranting interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. 5. Consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sdl- T.P. Sharma Judge