JUDGMENT K. C. Agarwal and S. M. A. Raza, JJ. - This is an appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, filed against the judgment dated May 9, 1979, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Allahabad. 2. Smt. Urmila -Pandey, widow of Ram Kishore Pandey, and her two minor children filed Claim Petition No. 21 of 1970 claiming a sum of Rs. 1,17,747-70 as compensation in respect of an accident, which occurred on March; 3, 1970, at about 5 p.m. The case was that the deceased Ram Kishore Pandey was coming on a cycle with a friend of his, when car No. UPC. 3527 struck him from behind and as a result of; which Ram Kishore Pandey received serious injuries and thereafter succumbed to them on the same day in the hospital. He died leaving behind the appellant No. 1, as his widow, and two children, arrayed as appellants Nos. 2 and 3. The deceased was working as a clerk in M. D. S. Chheoki, Naini, Allahabad. 3. In the claim petition four opposite parties were impleaded. They were (1) Khalil Ahmad, driver, (2) Purshottam alias Balwa son of Ram Kishan owner of the vehicle, (3) M/s. Chandra Financiers, Leader Road, Allahabad and (4) The New India Assurance Company Limited, Allahabad. 4. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 40,600 to the appellants/Claimants from the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The petition as against the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 was rejected. Thereafter the present appeal was filed in this Court impleading all the four opposite-parties as respondents Nos. 1 to 4. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4, videlicet. M/s. Chandra Financiers and The New India Assurance Company Limited, were not served with the notices of the appeal. The appeal was listed before the Joint Registrar for taking steps on January 28, 1981. The Joint Registrar gave two weekstime to the appellant to do the needful. But as the appellants failed to take any steps, the Joint Registrar again passed an order dated August 25, 1981, for taking steps. This yielded no result. The case was thereafter listed before the Court on November 4, 1981, on which date the Court passed the order that since steps had not been taken for service on respondents Nos. 1 and 2 the appeal is dismissed against them. 5. This yielded no result. The case was thereafter listed before the Court on November 4, 1981, on which date the Court passed the order that since steps had not been taken for service on respondents Nos. 1 and 2 the appeal is dismissed against them. 5. Upon the appeal being notified the appellants moved an application dated November 29, 1988, for granting time to serve respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and they also prayed for recalling of the order dated November 4, 1981. 6. We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the application and are not satisfied that the cause given for not taking steps to serve the respondents Nos. 1 and 2, was made out. This application has been made after seven years of the passing of the order, as such, it is rejected. Consequently, upon the rejection of the application the owner has not been served and the parties remained are M/s. Chandra Financiers and The New' India Assurance Company. Since the owners has not been served, who was the necessary party, the appeal cannot proceed as against the respondents Nos. 3 and 4. M/s. Chandra Financiers had given finance to Ram Kishan, father of Purshottam Lal, for purchasing the vehicle and a hire-purchase agreement was entered into in between Ram Kishan and M/s. Chandra Financiers. The Tribunal has found that the vehicle was in possession of Ram Kishan on the date of the accident and, therefore, the financiers could not be held responsible for the consequences of the accident, which occurred on March 3, 1980. No award can be made as against the financiers. 7. So far as the New India Assurance Company Limited is concerned, when the owner of the vehicle himself has not been served with the notices, it is not possible to hold the assurance company responsible for payment of compensation. It may be remembered that the claim filed as against the assurance company had been rejected by the Tribunal. From issue No. 4, which was framed by the Tribunal about the impleadment of the assurance company, it appears that the appellants had not even impleaded the assurance company with which the vehicle was insured. There was a lot of confusion in the Tribunal about it. The finding given by the Tribunal appears to be correct. 8. The appeal fails and is, consequently, dismissed