spb/- 1 fa1897-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1897 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2929 OF 2010 IN F.A.NO.1897 OF 2010 Shri Shantaram Shamrao Desai ... Appellant. Vs. Vanita Bhaskar Parab & Ors. ... Respondents. --- Mr.A. Karandikar i/by Mr. Khandeparkar & Assocaites for the Appellant. Mr. Amol Mharte for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. ----- CORAM : D. G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 15th FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. S.R. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5 is absent when called. 2 The respondent nos. 1 to 4 are the original claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appellant is the owner of the offending vehicle. The respondents filed claim application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for compensation arising out of the death spb/- 2 fa1897-10.sxw of husband of respondent no.2. The claim was allowed to the extent of seven lacs. Opponent no.1- Insurance Company was directed to pay 80% and the appellant was directed to pay 20% of the total amount awarded. Aggrieved by the direction, directing the appellant to pay 20% of the claim, the appellant has filed the present Appeal. 3 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on the date of accident occurred on 31st January, 2008 the appellant was not the owner of the offending vehicle as he had transferred the vehicle to Smt. Anandi Anand Dhuri on 30th January, 2008 itself. In support, he sought to rely upon a copy of a certificate issued by the Dy. R.T.O., Sindhudurg on 19th September, 2010. Copy of the said certificate is annexed at page 15 to the stay application. 4 Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the defence that the appellant was not the owner of the offending vehicle was not taken before the Tribunal. After service of a writ of summons, the Appellant appeared through an Advocate but did not file a written statement and did not remain present at the time of hearing. No issue regarding ownership was raised either in the written statement or at any stage before the Tribunal and it cannot be allowed to be raised for the spb/- 3 fa1897-10.sxw first time at the appellate stage especially in the absence of any pleadings. The Tribunal committed no error in holding that the appellant was the owner of the offending vehicle on the relevant date. Assuming that the copy of the certificate issued by the RTO is admissible in evidence in any case it was not produced before the Tribunal and in the absence of any good reason for non production at the trial it cannot be allowed to be produced at the appellate stage. No other point was urged. 5 The Appeal is dismissed summarily. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal itself, the civil application no. 2929 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of. [D.G. KARNIK, J.]