Judgment Vinod K. Sharma, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed against an order passed by the learned Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Chandigarh vide which liability under sec. 140 of the Motor vehicles Act has been fixed by way of ad interim compensation. 2. This very award was also the subject matter of challenge in C. R. No.3413 of 2005, where the only contention raised was that the amount should not be adjusted at the time of passing final award. Said revision was disposed of by passing the following order: "in this revision petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India, prayer is for quashing of order dated 3.6.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Chandigarh vide which the interim relief of Rs.50,000 has been granted to claimants-respondent Nos.1 and 2 in equal shares. The Claims Tribunal while awarding the interim compensation has held that the aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000 will be adjustable at the time of passing of final award by the Tribunal. In this situation, no illegality or perversity could be found in the order impugned herein. No ground for exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of india is made out. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. " 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the present case, contends that he had sold the scooter much prior to the date of accident and this fact stands admitted by the respondent in the written statement filed by him and, therefore, no liability could be fixed on him. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the ] judgment of this court in Harjinder Kaur V/s. Shahni Devi, 1991 ACJ 845 (Pandh) and a division Bench judgment of Kerala High court in Ouseph Varghese V/s. Kunjoonju alekutty, 1993 ACJ 981 (Kerala ). 4. However, these judgments are contrary to the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Vipin Kumar Sharma V/s. Jagwant Kaur, 2007 ACJ 1249 (Pandh), wherein it has been held that the registered owner is liable and in case vehicle had been sold to another person then he is to recover the amount from the subsequent purchasers by taking appropriate proceedings in the civil court. In view of this, there is no merit in the present revision petition. Petition dismissed.