M/S Mehta Construction Company vs Kiran Rawal And Others on 9 March, 2009

Civil Revision No. 6136 of 2008                           -1-

                                      ****


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH

                          Civil Revision No. 6136 of 2008
                          Date of decision: 9.3.2009

M/s Mehta Construction Company
                                                          ...Petitioner

                                   Versus

Kiran Rawal and others                                    ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.

Present:      Mr. Anand Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

              Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for the respondent No. 4.


S.D.ANAND, J.

The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter

referred to as “the Tribunal’), on a plea filed by the respondents herein

under order 11 Rules 12 and 14 C.P.C., directed the petitioner to produce

the registration certificate of the offending vehicle (a Road Roller) and the

original driving licence of the driver (who was in employment of the

petitioner-registered owner.)

Qua the former part of the order, the learned counsel states at

the bar that the Road Roller does not require registration and that the

alleged offending vehicle did, infact, not have a registration certificate. Qua

the latter part of the order, it is argued that the driver, who was driving the

offending Road Roller at the time of impugned accident, had left the

employment and his whereabouts are not known to the registered owner-

petitioner.

It is yet to be decided by the Tribunal whether a Road Roller

does, infact, require registration or not. It will be exclusively within the
Civil Revision No. 6136 of 2008 -2-

****

domain of the Tribunal to decide the effect, if any, of the non-registration

thereof.

In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the

petitioner at the bar that no photo copy of the driving licence of the driver

had been obtained at the time of hiring him. It is obvious that even that

part of the order cannot be upheld. The petition shall stand allowed

accordingly.

March 09, 2009                                           (S.D.Anand)
Pka                                                        Judge