ORDER M.P. Singh, J.
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 15.5.1996 passed by the Motor (Accidents Tribunal dismissing the claim petition of the claimant appellant.
2. The appellant Krishna Mohan @ Krishna Kumar Srivastava had filed a claim petition alleging that he met with an accident on 21.2.1993 at about 5.30 p.m. near Hydle crossing by Jeep No. UHX 272 due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver Bhagwati Prasad in which he received serious injuries. Abdul Hai, respondent No. 2 is alleged to be the owner of the vehicle. The claimant appellant claimed a sum of Rs. 1,75,530.60 towards medical expenses and damages, etc.
3. Abdul Hai filed written statement denying the fact that he was the owner of the vehicle in question. It was alleged that he sold the vehicle in question on 19.11.1987 in favour of Imtiyaz son of Abdul Razzak. He also denied the factum of the accident. The driver of the vehicle did not file any written statement.
4. The Tribunal vide its order dated 15.5.1996 dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the opposite party No. 2 Abdul Hai was not the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and the claimant appellant is not entitled to the amount claimed from him.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present appeal has been filed. The contesting respondent No. 2 did not appear despite sufficient notice.
Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
5. The appellant has filed an affidavit enclosing therewith a copy of the application dated 16.3.1993 filed by the respondent No. 2 Abdul Hai, the owner of the vehicle before the C.J.M., Azamgarh for release of the vehicle involved in the accident. He has not examined himself on oath in the claim petition denying the fact that he was not the owner of the vehicle. His bald assertion has erroneously been accepted by the Tribunal specially when no registration certificate of the vehicle was filed.
6. The Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim petition of the appellant on the ground that Abdul Hai, the respondent No. 2 was not the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.
7. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, this appeal is allowed. The order dated 15.5.1996 passed by the Motor Accidents Tribunal/IV Additional District Judge, Azamgarh is set aside. The case is remanded to the Tribunal concerned for a fresh decision in the light of the observations made above on merits after taking evidence of the parties concerned.