JUDGMENT
R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.10.1993 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Suit No.7/81 whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim of the claimant holding that in the absence of Pappu no award could be given for negligent driving of the vehicle.
2. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Tribunal are as follows:-
“Vijay Dutta on 23/8/80 at 1.45 p.m. along with FL Essar and G.D.Sethi and A.Tope and other person going on foot towards Shanker Market when the car No.DEA-3471 driven rashly and negligently by Res.2 in due course of employment under Res.1 & 5 came from the opposite direction with Res. On the front seat and hit the petitioner. Petitioner suffered injuries and he had to be hospitalised. Grievous injuries were suffered by the claimant as detailed in the petition. Considerable amount was spent in the treatment and he has claimed Rs.2,00,000/-. The vehicle was insured with Res.4.
The respondent No.3 was deleted on 15/10/82 and Res 4 was dropped by the petitioner on 12/11/82. The other respondents contested the case. Fact of accident has been denied. Negligence on the part of the driver has been denied. The owner of the vehicle Res.1 & 5 have pleaded no responsibility to pay any compensation. They have denied any knowledge about the claimant remaining in the hospital and regarding the amount spent by him. It is further pleaded that Res.2 was not driving the vehicle on 23/8/80 at the time of accident mentioned in the petition, under the employment of Res.1 & 5.
Res.2 in the WS has also denied the fact of accident, or his driving of the car at that time. Other allegations have also been denied.
Pleadings gave rise to the following issues as framed by my learned predecessor:-
1. Whether the petitioners suffered injuries on 23/8/80 due to rash and negligent driving of the car DEA-3471 by Res.2 has alleged in the para No.23 of the petition.
2. Whether Res. 1 & 5 are absolved from the liability for compensation as given in para No.22 of th WS.
3. To what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled and from when.
4. Relief.”
3. It is contented by counsel for the appellant that even if no claim is made against Pappu-the driver, the owner and the Insurance Company could not escape their liabilities.
4. In the present case, the vehicle was not insured. Therefore, the liability of the owner would subsist. It is contended by counsel for Gurcharan Singh that since he has been held not to be the driver of the vehicle and by his mere presence in the vehicle he cannot be made liable for the accident.
5. Heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment under challenge. It appears to me that the learned Tribunal has been unduly impressed by the fact that Pappu has been acquitted by the criminal court and, therefore, the question of rash and negligent driving cannot be gone into and further that since Pappu has been dropped by the claimant, the owner cannot be held liable for the claim.
6. Counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the judgment of High Court of Rajasthan in Navyug Oil and Dal Mills Vs. Nathi Devi and Ors., 2000 ACJ 1576 where the court has held that the liability of the owner does not cease because the driver has not been made a party to the claim petition or has been dropped from the petition.
7. Further he also draws my attention to the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Municipal Committee, Jullundur City Vs. Shri Romesh Saggi & Ors. . Similarly, is a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Raja Ram Garg Vs. Chhanga Singh and Ors., .
8. In view of the judgments cited above, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has gone wrong in not proceeding with the case on the evidence available before it, but dropped the same on the plea that Pappu has been acquitted and further Pappu has not been made a party.
9. In that view of the matter, I set aside the order dated 14.10.1993 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and remand the matter for re-appreciation of the evidence on record and return his findings in accordance with law.
10. FAO 57/1994 is disposed of.