IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No.: 426 of 2004 Date of decision : 19.4.2011 Raj Kumar …Appellant Versus Smt. Biasa Devi and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents 1(a) & 1(b): Mr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent No.4: Mr. Sanjeev Sood, vice Mr. K.D.Sood, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) 1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 22.9.2004 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur in MACT Petition No. 23 of 2002, awarding a sum of Rs.2,81,506/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum to late Shri Ishwar Dass, predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1(a) and 1(b). The learned Tribunal, however, exonerated the Insurance Company on the ground that no document had been placed on record to show that the vehicle was insured or that even it had valid documents. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 2. It would be pertinent to mention that before the learned Tribunal the present appellants had filed an application for leading additional evidence which, however, was rejected on the ground of delay. Vide order dated 15.6.2009 this Court came to the conclusion that it was necessary and in the interest of justice to record additional evidence in the case. 3. Shri Raj Kumar, who is the appellant, claims that he was only the driver of the vehicle and his father Shri Roshan Lal was the true owner of the vehicle. The registration certificate of the vehicle has been now placed on record and exhibited as Ext.AW-1/A in which Shri Roshan Lal S/o Sh. Lohari Ram is shown to be the registered owner of the vehicle, which is a Maxi cab. Ext.AW-1/B is a copy of the record of the registering authority which also shows that Roshan Lal S/o Lohari Ram was the owner of the vehicle. Ext.AW-2/A is an extract of the register of the Registering Authority in which the vehicle is again shown to be owned by Shri Roshan Lal and it also shows that initially the vehicle was hypothecated with Central Bank of India, Hamirpur though the hypothecation was cancelled on 15.09.2003. Ext.R-1/A is the 3 application form for registration of the vehicle wherein again the owner of the vehicle is shown to be Roshan Lal. Ext.AW-3/A is the copy of the Insurance Policy wherein insured are shown as Roshan Lal and Raj Kumar. Whether it was Roshan Lal alone who was the owner or whether Roshan Lal and Raj Kumar both were the owner, the fact is that at the relevant time when the accident took place the Insurance Company had insured the vehicle in question and therefore, it had to be held liable to pay the compensation. 4. Accordingly, the award of the learned Tribunal is modified to the limited extent that the appellant as well as the Insurance Company are held jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount. Since the Insurance Company has now been held liable to satisfy the award and to indemnify the owner, it is directed to deposit the entire awarded amount alongwith interest in the Registry of this Court on or before 30th June, 2011. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. 19th April, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.