JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Having heard the learned counsel of the revisionist, I admit this revision. 2. It transpires that the accident occurred on 24.11.2014 by Max Pickup (bearing No.UA-12-7122) resulting the loss of life of Mr. Dinesh Singh Negi. 3. As per the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist, above numbered jeep was owned by Mr. Girish Singh Rawat only till 10.02.2014 and through a sale letter, executed between the parties on such date, as indicated above, ownership was transferred to Mr. Dinesh Singh Negi. 4. In such sale letter, he undertook to make the insurance of such vehicle himself thenceforth but for the reasons best known to him, neither his name got substituted in the Office of Transport Officer, nor got the insurance done any further from any Company and meanwhile, the accident occurred and Mr. Dinesh Singh Negi lost his life. 5. So, the Claim Petition No.06/2015 has been instituted by the parents, widow and minor daughter of deceased Mr. Dinesh Singh Negi, impleading the applicant/revisionist Mr. Girish Singh Rawat, as opposite party no.1. 6. After receiving the notice, Mr. Girish Singh Rawat appeared before the Tribunal and moved an application bringing all these facts to the notice of the Court below with the request that the additional issues be framed besides the issues, which had already been framed on the basis of Written Statement submitted by the Insurance Company, which was the insurer of the vehicle at some point of time but prior to the time of accident. 7. Learned Court below was pleased to formulate the additional issue as under:- “Whether the O.P. No.1 Girish Chandra has ceased to be an owner of vehicle involved in the accident, as per the document paper no.12-C in the file?” 8. I think to decide the controversy, it would have been worded in the better manner as under:- “Whether the O.P. No.1 Girish Chandra had ceased to be an owner of the vehicle involved in the accident on or before 24.11.2014?” 9. Thereafter, Mr. Girish Singh Rawat further moved an application with the prayer that the permission be accorded to him for making his oral submissions on the issue, which had been so additionally framed but the learned Court below has rejected this application. 10. Thereafter, Mr. Girish Singh Rawat further moved an application with the prayer that the permission be accorded to him for making his oral submissions on the issue, which had been so additionally framed but the learned Court below has rejected this application. 10. As far as, granting the permission for making oral submissions is concerned, I think the order does not suffer from any infirmity because oral submissions or mere filing a sale letter will not have much evidentiary value, which will be culled out by cross-examination of Mr. Girish Singh Rawat only and the persons, whose interest is clashing from Mr. Girish Singh Rawat, are straightaway, the claimants themselves because they are the dependants of deceased Mr. Dinesh Singh Negi, to whom, the vehicle was allegedly sold on 10.02.2014. 11. This revision is finally disposed of with the following directions:- (1) Mr. Girish Singh Rawat will file his Written Statement before the Tribunal making averments regarding the sale letter dated 10.02.2014 and then of course, it is his right to produce himself in the witness box as O.P.W. No.1 and then further, to cross-examine the witnesses, who are produced on behalf of the claimants. He shall not be stopped from producing the witnesses of the sale letter, who are Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Mr. Ajay Rawat and Public Notary, and then only the truth can be churned out. 12. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to learned counsel for the revisionist today itself on payment of usual charges.