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