JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) - This revision petition has been filed against an order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh vide which liability under Section 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 CR 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 Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, vide which the interim relief of Rs. 50,000/- has been granted to claimants respondents 1 and 2 in equal shares. The 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 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 fixed 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. Shahni Devi and others, 1991 ACJ 845 and a Division Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in Ouseph Varghese v. Kunjoonju Alekutty and others, 1993 ACJ 981. 4. However these judgments are contrary to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Vipin Kumar Sharma v. Jagwant Kaur, 2005(3) PLR 454, 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 purchaser by taking appropriate proceedings in the civil Court. 5. In view of this, there is no merit in the present revision petition. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.