7-J-WP-365-26 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.365 OF 2026 Shri. Pravin Prakash Satpute, Aged about: 46, Occ.: Business, R/o-Santaji Nagar, Bhadrawati, Tah- Bhadrawati, Dist. Chandrapur … Petitioner //Versus// 1. Smt. Mangala wd/o Vitthal Yeole, Aged about 50 years, Occ.: Nil, R/o- Shivapur, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur. 2. Smt. Shevantabai Yeole, Deleted. 3. Snehal Vitthal Yeole, Aged about 34 years, Occ.: Nil, R/o- Shivapur, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur. 4. Bhavna Vitthal Yeole, Aged about 32 years, Occ.: Nil, R/o- Shivapur, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur. 5. Saorab Vitthal Yeole, Aged about 30 years, Occ.: Nil, R/o- Shivapur, Tah. Umred, Dist. Nagpur. … Respondents Shri A. M. Chandekar, Advocate for petitioner. Respondents served. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : August 20, 2026 Judgment : Heard Shri A. M. Chandekar, learned counsel for the 2026:BHC-NAG:11166 7-J-WP-365-26 2/3 petitioner. Though served, none appeared for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 23/12/2025 passed below Exhibit-49 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in M.A.C.P. No.444/2021. The said application i.e. Exhibit-49 was moved by the original respondent who is and still continues to be the registered owner of the vehicle for addition of party under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/ applicant before the Tribunal that the offending vehicle was sold by him way back in the year 2005 to one Atul Ghugare who in turn sold the same to Sheikh Jamil Sheikh Mehboob and thereafter Sheikh Jamil sold the same to Smt Nandini alias Nandabai Shivraj Masram. It is the contention of the petitioner that at the time of accident Nandini Masram was the owner of offending vehicle. It was therefore prayed that said Nandini Masram be added in the array of respondents. 4. I have gone through the record of the matter and more particularly the impugned order. Para 5 of the impugned order records a finding that there is nothing on record to show that the present petitioner-applicant before the Tribunal has followed the mandate of 7-J-WP-365-26 3/3 Section 50(1) (a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the said Act) for intimating the RTO regarding sale of the vehicle. Only a bare averment/statement is made in that regard. Even if a trivial attempt has been made to show that there was a sale-deed when the petitioner herein transferred the said vehicle, the fact remains that the vehicle stands in the name of a person who is a registered owner. Reliance has been placed on the fact that the said person i.e. Nandini has got the vehicle on supratnama. The said fact would be hardly of any relevance in the petition under the provisions of the said Act. Reliance placed in that regard on Sections 168 and 169 of the said Act is entirely misconceived. Section 168 empowers the Tribunal to determine and award compensation, whereas Section 169 grants Tribunal with powers of Civil Court to follow summary procedure. 5. The order impugned is well reasoned one and cannot be said to be perverse by any stretch of imagination. In paragraphs 5, 6 and 7, the Tribunal has recorded elaborate findings which in my opinion are dealt with on material available on record. The petition is without any merit and is liable to be rejected. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE J.) Asmita Signed by: Smt. Asmita A. Bhandakkar Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 27/08/2026 18:25:31