JUDGMENT PRADIP MOHANTY, J. — Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12.1.1995 passed by the 4th Motor Accidents Claims Tribu¬nal, Puri, in M.A.C.T. Case No. 434/1065 of 93/98, the claimant has field this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The fact of the case, in brief, is that the claimant-appellant was a student of Accountancy at the time of occurrence. On 15.10.1988 at about 6.20 PM, while the claimant-appellant was returning to Baramunda in Bhubaneswar from Sahid Nagar side on his bicycle, the offending bus bearing registration No. OSX-8151, which approached from the opposite direction at Nayapalli road junction swerved towards its right side and dashed against the claimant-appellant as a result of which he sustained multiple injuries including lacerated injuries on different parts of his body and the bicycle was damaged. The claimant-appellant was removed to the Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar where he was treated and subsequently he was referred to the S.C.B. Medical College Hospital, Cuttack, for further treatment. The claimant-appellant filed a petition before the 4th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puri, claiming compensation of Rs. 2,01,000/-. 3. The opposite party-respondent No. 1 though did not file any formal written statement, but filed a letter dated 30.11.92 before the Tribunal disowning the ownership of the offending vehicle. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., respondent-oppo¬site party No. 2 only contested the case and filed written state¬ment not admitting that the offending bus was insured with it at the time of accident. Besides, it denied the allegations made by the claimant-appellant. However, none of the opposite parties participated in the hearing. 4. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant and taking into account the principle of law propounded by the Apex Court in AIR 1985 Punjab and Haryana, 355 (M/s United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Gurmail Kaur and others) held that the claimant having failed to implead the real owner of the offending vehicle, the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability to any compensation. Accordingly, the claim appli¬cation was dismissed. 5. In course of the pending of this appeal the appellant-claimant having conceded the position of law, has duly impleaded the owner of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the claim appli¬cation was dismissed. 5. In course of the pending of this appeal the appellant-claimant having conceded the position of law, has duly impleaded the owner of the offending vehicle. In such circumstances, it is just and proper to remit the case back to the Tribunal for fresh hearing in the presence of the parties. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside. The pro¬ceeding is remanded back to the Tribunal. Parties including newly impleaded owner of the offending vehicle are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 20th August, 2003. On a formal application being filed by the claimant, the Tribunal shall pass appropriate order impleading the real owner and proceed to dispose of the case within six months. The misc. appeal is accordingly allowed. Misc. Appeal allowed.