JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J.
1. This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Heti against the judgment and order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mathura, rejecting their claim petition under Section 110-A of the Act.
2. The claim of the appellants was that on January 17, 1977 at about 8 a.m. Sukhi Ram (respondent No. 1) was transporting bricks in a trolly, driven by him, by the tractor No. RJI 1028 from village Dautana to Phalan district Mathura. Heti Ram bad been engaged as a labourer by Sukhi Ram, who set on it mud-guard. Sukhi Ram applied brakes to the tractor all of a sudden, as a result whereof Heti fell down from the mud-guard and came under one of the wheels of the running tractor. He was crushed and died. The appellants claimed (hat the deceased Heti was earning Rs. 500/- per month, therefore, the appellants were entitled to Rs. 90,000/-.
3. Two written statements were filed--one by Jiwan Lal and the other by Sukhi Ram. Jiwan Lal had been imp leaded in the claim petition asserting that he was owner of the tractor and trolly as such, for payment of compensation, on account of the accident which occurred on January 17, 1977, he was liable to pay the damages to the family of the deceased Heti. Sukhi Ram was its driver. One of the questions that arises is whether Jiwan Lal was owner of the tractor and the trolly and Whether he was liable for payment of damages claimed by the claimants. No issue had been framed on the question as to whether Jiwan Lal was the owner of the tractor or not.
4. It appears that in paragraph 3 of the judgment, the Tribunal wrongly observed that Jiwan Lal did not file any written-statement. From page 14 of the paper-book we find that the written-statement had been filed by Jiwan Lal asserting that the deceased Heti did not meet with the accident by the tractor belonging to him.
5. The question was as to whether the deceased Heti was sitting on the mud-guard or on the bricks kept on the tractor. The two sides led evidence in support of their case. However, assuming that the deceased was sitting on the mudguard, the question still arises as to whether he was permitted to do so. Could the respondent No. 2 (Jiwan Lal) and Sukhi Ram, the driver, not liable for paying the compensation for the accident. There is no finding of the Tribunal on this basis. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it could be presumed that the deceased could not sit on the mud-guard but for the implied permission of Sukhi Ram to do so. In that event the court could have held that the deceased contributed to the same. But, the claim of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased could not be rejected in its entirety. However, it was initially on the part of the Tribunal to have framed an issue about the ownership of the tractor of Jiwan Lal. The decree could only be against the owner of the vehicle and as no issue had been framed on that controversy and as no evidence had been led, it is just that the judgment of the Tribunal be set aside and the case is sent back for a decision. If the Tribunal finds it necessary to have fresh evidence, it will be entitled to do so. The claim petition may be decided expeditiously.
6. With these observations, the appeal is allowed.