IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No. 379 of 2010 Date of Decision 13th May ,2011 ________________________________________________________ Santokh Singh ….Appellant. Versus Ram Pal and others ….Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 & 2: Mr. Vineet Guleria, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3: Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No. 5: Ms. Seema Sood, Advocate. ______________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral) CMP(M) No. 951 of 2010 & FAO No. 379 of 2010 This appeal is barred by 433 days. That should have been reason enough to reject the appeal. However, what I find from the record is that a clear mistake has been committed by the learned Court below. 2. It is undisputed before me that the accident took place on 2nd January, 2004. The learned Motor Accident Claims 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Tribunal, while adjudicating on the contentions of the parties, had fastened the liability on the appellant being owner of the vehicle. This finding has been preempted by the fact that there was no representation on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Nirmal Singh and Santokh). While holding Santokh appellant herein to be the owner of the vehicle, the Court records: “11. There is also no dispute that the truck in question at the relevant time was owned by respondent No.2. When it is proved that the accident in question took place because of rash and negligent driving of the truck in question by respondent No.1, the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the respondent No.2 being the owner of truck No. HP-16-2525.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn my attention to the documents as filed in this appeal. One of them is the registration certificate of the vehicle which does not seem to have been proved on record of the case before the Tribunal. However, even without going through this document, what I find is that Ext.RX is a policy of Insurance which states in no uncertain terms that truck No. HP-16-2525 was insured in the name of Nirmal Singh, son of Amar Singh, village Setran, Una. The insurance is stated to be valid from 22.5.2003 till 21.5.2004. In other words, the insured person was Nirmal Singh and the accident occurred on 2.1.2004 i.e. during the period of currency insurance policy. It is in these circumstances that I condone the delay and allow this appeal to the extent that the matter shall be considered afresh by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which shall determine the question of ownership. Parties to appear before the learned Tribunal, Una on 13th June, 2011 which 3 shall proceed with the case afresh, only on the question of determination of the ownership of the vehicle. Parties shall be allowed to lead evidence on this issue only. Appeal stands disposed of. Let record of the learned Court below be sent back forthwith. May 13th, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 4