Judgment :- 1. These appeals are directed against the interim award of Rs. 25,000 passed against the appellant in IA. No. 859 and 775 of 1989. The appellant has filed a counter affidavit in the application before the court below taking a plea that the appellants bus TML 7375 had nothing to do with the accident and the appellants denied the accident as such. The Tribunal has passed the interim award on the basis that the copy of the F.I.R. produced before him alleged that the bus TML. 7375 was involved in the accident and therefore the accident was true. 2. The reasoning of the Tribunal is clearly erroneous. Under S. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act the claimant is exempted from pleading or establishing that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which a claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner or owners of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. Sub-sec(1) of S. 140 of the Act does not go to the extent of exempting the claimant from proving that the vehicle involved in the accident is the vehicle belonging to the respondent in the petition filed ‘by him. Sub A (1)of S. 140 or the Act reads as follows: “1. Where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, the owner of the vehicle shall, or as the case may be, the owners of the vehicles shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay compensation in respect of such death ordisablement in accordance with the provisions of this section.” 3. Under the sub-section essential requisite is that the person who is sought to be made liable has to be the owner of the Vehicle involved in the accident and unless it is made out, there is no question of invoking S. 140 of the Act against him. 4. In this case the F.I.R. that is perused by the Tribunal is not evidence at all. Based On the F.I.R. the Tribunal cannot held that the vehicle of the appellant was involved in the accident. 5. Learned counsel for the claimant has produced before me a typed set containing several document, which, according to him, would prove prima facie that the vehicle of the appellant was involved in the accident. Based On the F.I.R. the Tribunal cannot held that the vehicle of the appellant was involved in the accident. 5. Learned counsel for the claimant has produced before me a typed set containing several document, which, according to him, would prove prima facie that the vehicle of the appellant was involved in the accident. Those documents were not produced before the court below and they have not been marked as evidence. Hence, refuse to look into it. 6. The orders of the Tribunal are set aside and the appeals are allowed. 1. A. 859 and 875 of 1989 are remanded to the file of the Tribunal to be heard and disposed of afresh in the light of the observations made by me above. The Tribunal shall permit the parties to adduce evidence available to them and on the basis of the said evidence, if the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the Vehicle of the appellant was involved in the accident, the Tribunal can proceed to pass interim awards under S. 140 of the Act. The applications shall be disposed of on or before 30-6-1991. No costs.