1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1293 OF 2009 Hameed s/o. Mehandibhai Nathani, R/o. Municipal Colony, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. ....Appellant. Versus Rupali w/o. Manjo Kadam, R/o. Yerendeshwar, Tq. Purna, Dist. Parbhani & one another. ....Respondents. Shri. Swapnil S. Rathi, Advocate for the appellant. Shri. S.R. Bagul, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 12th August 2009 ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Shri. Swapnil Rathi, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri. S.R. Bagal for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the original claimants. In view of order dated 23rd of June 2009, putting the parties on notice that the matter shall be decided at the stage of admission, the instant appeal is being decided finally by the consent of parties. 2 2. This appeal challenges the order dated 13.3.2009 below Exh. 5 in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 407 of 2007, passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbhani, holding that the respondents/claimants are entitled to no fault liability amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the appellant under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the appellant is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of 30 days. In case of default, it is further ordered that the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. till its realisation. It is further directed that if the amount is deposited, the same shall be paid to the respondents/claimants. The appellant herein is the sole respondent in MACP NO. 407 of 2007. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the original owner of the vehicle, contended that he has sold the vehicle i.e. Indica Car bearing registration No. MH-22/D-2411 to one Habib Ahmed s/o. Habib Abdulla, Age 33 yrs, R/o. Parbhani on 13.3.2007 and on that date itself, the possession of the said vehicle was handed over to said Habib Ahmed along with all the papers of the vehicle. In support of this, he has produced copy of the agreement on record. He has also produced on record, his own statement dated 28.7.2007 recorded by the police in the offence registered against the said Habib Ahmed on 27.7.2007 under section 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, in respect of rash and negligent driving of aforesaid Indica Car. He has also placed on record the statement dated 25.7.2007, recorded by the police, wherein the said 3 Habib Ahmed has admitted that he has purchased this car from the appellant herein. The record of the R.T.O., however, continues to show the name of the appellant as the owner. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court delivered in the case of Vasant Vishwanathan and others Vs. V.K. Elayalwar and others reported in A.I.R. 2001 Supreme Court 3367 and another judgment of this Court reported in 1991 (3) Bom. C. R. 218, Virendrakumar J. Handa Vs. Dilawarkhan Alij Khan and others, the learned counsel contended that the liability to pay compensation, arisen out of the accident of the aforesaid Indica Car, should rest upon said Habib Ahmed, to whom the appellant has sold the vehicle. According to the the learned counsel, on the date of occurrence of accident i.e. on 20.7.2007, the vehicle was already in possession of said Habib Ahmed and he was driving the said vehicle. 4. The learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by the impugned order, has held in para No. 7 that the appellant himself has claimed the custody of the car after its seizure. According to the tribunal, if the car was already sold and given in possession of Shri. Habib Ahmed, then there was no need for the appellant to have any interest in the said vehicle and to demand the custody of it. The learned counsel does not dispute that the appellant has demanded the custody of the vehicle and the same was delivered to him after an accident. 5. In my view, the question whether the appellant, who is the 4 original respondent to the claim petition, is the real owner of the vehicle i.e. Indica Car No. MH-22/D-2411, involved in the accident, occurred on 19.7.2007, is a disputed question of fact. It is, on the basis of the material placed on record, a prima facie view is taken for the purpose of fastening the liability under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the tribunal. The tribunal has taken a possible view of the matter and has passed an order directing the appellant to deposit the amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards no fault liability. The view taken by the tribunal is a possible view and hence, I do not find any reason to interfere in the said order passed by the tribunal, except to the extent of securing interest of appellant company in the event of its ultimate success before tribunal. 7. However, it is made clear that neither of the observations made in the order below Exh. 5 passed in MACP No. 407 of 2007 on 13.3.2009 by the learned Chairman of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbhani nor any of the observations made on the prima facie view of this matter in the present order shall come in the way of the appellant, at the stage of final hearing/decision of the matter in question to take contrary view. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has already filed an affidavit before the tribunal pointing out that one Shri. Habib Ahmed s/o. Habib Abdulla, R/o. Parbhani is the owner of the vehicle. The learned counsel is at liberty to move an appropriate application for joining the said Habib Ahmed s/o. Habib Abdulla, as a party respondent in the claim petition. If such application is made, the tribunal shall 5 consider the same on its own merits. However, in spite of this, if the original claimants refuse to join the said Shri. Habib Ahmed as a party respondent to the proceedings, then the same shall be at their own risk and consequences. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has already deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- in this Court on 6.5.2009. The same shall be remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal immediately. The Tribunal, by impugned order, directed that if the amount is deposited, the same shall be paid to the claimants. The appellant shall deposit balance amount in the Tribunal and the claimant shall be permitted to withdraw the said amount, upon furnishing an undertaking in writing before the Tribunal that in the event, the ultimate decision of the Tribunal goes against him, the claimant shall re-deposit the amount withdrawn, within a period eight weeks from the date of final decision by the Tribunal. 9. In the light of aforesaid observation, the instant appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/fa1293.09