D. Swamy vs Basheer Ahmed, Nayyaz Ahmed and N.K. Manjuraj

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 20.07.2012 passed on IA. No. 1 in MVC No. 1657/2009 impugned at Annexure-D to the petition. The petitioner herein is the claimant in MVC No. 1657/2009. The claim was filed against the respondent No. 1 who was impleaded contending that he was the driver of the vehicle which had caused accident and the respondent No. 2 impleaded originally was averred to be the owner of the vehicle in question. The respondent No. 2 who was originally impleaded had not appeared before the Court below. Subsequently, the claimant/petitioner has made an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC seeking impleadment of the proposed respondent that is the respondent No. 3 herein.

The contention of the petitioner is that as per the extract at Annexure-E to the petition, he still continues to be the registered owner of the vehicle in question and therefore he is a proper and necessary party to the petition. The application numbered as IA. No. 5 was opposed by the proposed respondent by filing a detailed objection statement and produced documents along with the objection statement. The Court below while considering the rival contentions has taken note of the objection and also the endorsement produced by the proposed respondent issued by the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore indicating that the motor vehicle had been sold to Sri Nayyaz Ahmed, No. 110, Muslim Block, H.R. Kote, Mysore that is the respondent No. 2 impleaded to the claim petition. In that view, the Tribunal was of the view that the respondent No. 3 herein that is the proposed respondent is not a necessary and proper party inasmuch as the RC owner remains to be the respondent No. 2 who was impleaded initially to the claim petition.

Having taken note of the order passed by the Court below and the contentions put forth herein, though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per extract at Annexure-E, the name of the respondent No. 3 herein is shown, what is necessary to be noticed is that the respondent No. 3 herein who was the erstwhile owner of the vehicle who had sold the vehicle had complied with his obligation under the Act by dispatching the appropriate form to the Office of the RTO. Accordingly, the endorsement has been made with regard to the transfer made to the name of Sri Nayyaz Ahmed. In that view, the registered owner is already on record and the Tribunal has also taken note of this fact and has come to a conclusion that the RC owner is already on record. Certainly, while passing the award, the liability has to be fastened against respondent No. 2 and as such the petitioner would have the liberty of pointing out to the Court below during the final arguments with regard to the documents produced by way of an endorsement by the respondent No. 3 herein and to take note of the same with regard to the liability. In that view of the matter, the order impugned herein does not call for interference except for the observations made above.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.