FAO No.3815 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3815 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision. 30.05.2011 Shri Raj Kumar son of Sh. Amar Nath, resident of Gupta Colony, Tohana District Fatehabad (registered owner of offending truck bearing registration No.HR-62/6192) ......Appellant Versus Smt. Raman widow of Sukhwinder Singh son of Virsa Singh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Aftab Singh Khara, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No. -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appeal is filed by the person against whom award was passed on the basis that he was the registered owner of the vehicle, which was admittedly involved in the accident. He did no more than to file a reply stating that he was not the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time of accident and he had been falsely implicated. The Tribunal relied on the entry at the RTO office that he was the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time. The liability of the registered owner for a claim arising on account of the accident cannot be found fault with at all. 3. Learned counsel argues that he had given a complaint to the police saying that he had been wrongly implicated and the SSP has found FAO No.3815 of 2011 (O&M) -2- that the vehicle was not in his possession at the time of accident. This is an irrelevant piece of evidence and the appellant cannot rely on a document which is cited before this Court first time when it was not tendered at the trial. The counsel also argued that he had applied under RTI to gather evidence that the vehicle had been transferred subsequently in the year 2007. The case arose out of an accident which was said to have taken place in the year 2005 and there was also a document from the RTO office to show that at the relevant time, the vehicle stood registered in the name of the appellant. The liability cast on the appellant, under such circumstances, is again appropriate and just. 4. If the contention of the appellant is that the vehicle had been transferred to another person and the vehicle was actually in the hands of Gurmit Singh and that he had been allowed to be given up in the course of proceedings, the appellant will have an independent action for right of recovery of entire amount if he can establish that the vehicle had been really in the possession of Gurmit Singh and that he was the owner at the relevant time. 5. As far as the Tribunal is concerned, it was justified in passing an award against the registered owner and in favour of the claimants. I find no scope for interference. 6. The award is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed with liberty provided to the appellant in the manner aforesaid. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 30, 2011 Pankaj*