JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - This appeal arises out of a decision of the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarding compensation to the claimants and directing that the said compensation payable by the insurer be borne by the Appellant. 2. On 9.9.1974 one Brundaban Sahoo met with an accident and succumbed. The offending vehicle was ORG 1445. The said vehicle had been purchased by Narayan Panda in the name of his minor son Pradip Kumar Panda. The legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Tribunal alleging that Brundaban met his end on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle belonging to Pradip Kumar Panda and insured with the Appellant. In the said application against serial No. 15 names of Pradip Kumar Panda and one Abhi Sabat were entered. Against serial No. 23 in the fourth sub-paragraph the following was averred: That in the registration certificate the Respondent No. 2 is described as the owner of the vehicle ORG 1445 and the Petitioner was informed that the Respondent 2 has already sold the vehicle to Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 1 is in actual management of the truck and Respondent No. 3 is the driver in his employment. Hence all the Respondents are liable to compensate the loss sustained by the Petitioner collectively and individually. The name of Respondent No. 3 was later on deleted. The insurer in the written statement stated as follows: This Respondent insurance company learns that the vehicle ORG 1445 was sold to Mr. Abhimanyu Sabat and Mr. Lakshmikaata Panda. The liability of the Respondent insurance company ceases with the transfer of the vehicle by the insured to the third parties and the company is therefore not liable for any occurrence after the ownership of the vehicle has passed to third parties. This Respondent No. 3 was not in the employment of the insured Pradeep Kumar Panda by the date of the occurrence as he has already transferred the vehicle by sale in favour of Respondent No. 1 and Mr. Lakshmikanta Panda. The Respondent company cannot beheld liable for acts of persons who are not employees of the insured and for acts not done in the course of their employment under the insured. 3. Lakshmikanta Panda. The Respondent company cannot beheld liable for acts of persons who are not employees of the insured and for acts not done in the course of their employment under the insured. 3. The Tribunal rightly framed the following two issues, inter alia: (2) Whether Pradeep Kumar Panda was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident, he having sold the vehicle on 12.9.73 as contended by him ? (3) Whether the insurance policy for the vehicle is void and inoperative as contended by the insurer and whether it has any liability to pay compensation ? It was, therefore, essential to ascertain who was the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time and thereafter to find out if the liability of the owner was to be borne by the insurance company according to law. The first question could be decided only in presence of the party likely to be affected by the decision. There were allegations that the vehicle had been transferred to Mr. Abhi Sabat and Mr. Lakshmikanta Panda. Mr. Sabat had been impleaded as a party, but Mr. Lakshmikanta Panda had been left out. For setting the controversies at rest and disposing the matter in its entirety, it was therefore, necessary that Mr. Lakshmikanta Panda should have been arrayed as a party and called upon to appear. The said question could not be decided one way or other without he being before the Tribunal because in case it was found that there was a transfer by Pradeep Kumar Panda in favour of Abhi Sabat and Lakshmikanta Panda jointly or to Lakshmikanta Panda solely, Mr. Lakshmikanta Panda would be adversely affected and he not being before the Tribunal, it was not open to adjudicate the said issue. An error of procedure crept in at that stage where the Tribunal overlooked this aspect of the matter and proceeded to hear the case on merits. The proceeding before the Tribunal therefore got vitiated from that stage and since no effective decision can be given without Lakshmikanta Panda being before the court, the decision of the Tribunal is unsustainable. I, therefore, vacate the decision of the Tribunal in Misc. The proceeding before the Tribunal therefore got vitiated from that stage and since no effective decision can be given without Lakshmikanta Panda being before the court, the decision of the Tribunal is unsustainable. I, therefore, vacate the decision of the Tribunal in Misc. Case No. 36 of 1975 and remit the same for disposal afresh after making Lakshmikanta Panda a party to the proceeding and after issuing notice to him in accordance with law- Full opportunity should be given to all the parties including the newly added Lakshmikanta Panda in the proceeding. The accident took place in 1974 and eight years in the meanwhile have elapsed and the claimants are being deprived of their legitimate dues on account of the lapse of the Court as aforesaid. I, therefore direct that the proceeding in the Court below should be disposed of within three months after service of notice on Lakshmikanta Panda. 4. In view of the order proposed, it is unnecessary to decide the cross-objection of the claimants regarding enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal while disposing of the matter afresh will decide the issues without being influenced by any observation made in the judgment now set aside. In the circumstances, there would be no order as to costs.