JUDGMENT Hon’ble R.K. Rastogi, J.—This is an appeal against the award dated 11.1.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IVth Addl. District Judge, Faizabad in Claim Petition No. 79/95, Hansraj Singh v. Subhal Yadav and others. 2. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the claimant respondent Hansraj Singh filed aforesaid claim petition in the Court of District Judge, Faizabad against Subhal Yadav and Chandar Yadav on 18.7.1995 with these allegations that on 3.2.95 at about 11.30 a.m. on pitch road within the village Sadi Ka Purwa, he was hit by a Tractor which did not bear registration number. The Tractor was owned by Chandar Yadav and was being driven by Subhal Yadav. The claimant received injuries on his chest, knee joint, left wrist etc. and a sum of Rs. 8,100/- was spent in his treatment. His cycle was also damaged in the accident and Rs. 306 were spent in its repairing. The claimant had also paid Rs. 5,500/- to the Doctor towards fees. He was earning Rs. 1,000/- per month at that time and due to this accident he could not do his work for a period of ten months. He, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of work and Rs. 5,000/- for loss of his agricultural income. He also claimed Rs. 10,000/- for physical pain and Rs. 1,200/- for mental pain, in all Rs. 40,106/-. 3. It may be mentioned that a F.I.R. of the incident was also lodged on 16.2.05 with the same particulars in which it was stated that Subhal Yadav son of Moti Lal Yadav was driving the Tractor and Chandar Yadav son of Ram Newaj Yadav, owner of the Tractor was also sitting in that Tractor at that time. Registration number etc. of the Tractor is not mentioned in the F.I.R. also. 4. The opposite party No. 2 (in the claim petition) named Chandar Yadav filed a written statement on 29.5.97 in which he pleaded that on the date of the accident he was having neither any Tractor nor any other vehicle and no accident had taken place on the so called date with the so called vehicle. He is nephew of Sri Parashuram Yadav who has been MLA of Bikapur constituency and he had a quarrel with the claimant on the date of voting and so on account of that enmity he has been implicated in this case. He is nephew of Sri Parashuram Yadav who has been MLA of Bikapur constituency and he had a quarrel with the claimant on the date of voting and so on account of that enmity he has been implicated in this case. 5. The claimant moved an amendment application on 29.7.97 in which he made a request for adding registration number of the Tractor as U.P. 61-9358 and for adding the name of owner of the vehicle as Ram Newaj son of Gurudatt resident of Shadi Ka Purwa P.S. Inayat Nagar District Faizabad. This application was rejected by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal vide his order dated 22.8.97. 6. Thereafter the claimant moved another application in which it was stated that at the time of accident no registration number was displayed on the vehicle and so it could not be mentioned in the petition at the time of its filing. He further stated that at the time of accident the Tractor was owned by Ram Newaj father of opposite party No. 1 (in the claim petition) who had purchased the Tractor from its previous owners Rajesh Kumar Pandey son of Satya Narayan Pandey and Smt. Kalawati Devi wife of Satya Nayaran Pandey and so at the time of accident Rajesh Kumar Pandey and Smt. Kalawati Devi were its registered owners and since opposite party No. 1 had wrongly told that the opposite party No. 2 (Chandar Yadav) was real owner of the Tractor, the name of opposite party No. 2 was disclosed as its registered owner at that time. This amendment application was allowed by the Court. Thereafter Ram Newaj filed written statement in which he pleaded that he had no Tractor with him at the time of the accident. 7. Following issues were framed in this case by the Tribunal : (1) Whether any accident had taken place on 3.2.95 at 11.30 a.m. at Wadika Purwa from Tractor No. UP 61/9358 due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor and whether claimant Hansraj Singh had received any fatal injury in that accident. (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation ? If yes, then, to what amount and from which of the opposite parties ? 8. (2) Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation ? If yes, then, to what amount and from which of the opposite parties ? 8. Learned Tribunal held on issue No. 1 that the accident had taken place on 3.2.2005 at 11.30 a.m. from Tractor No. UP 61/9358 due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor by its driver and claimant Hansraj Singh received injuries in this accident. He held on issue No. 2 that the claimant was entitled to recover Rs. 10,000/- only as compensation from owner of the vehicle Ram Newaj (Opposite party No. 3). He, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the claimant alongwith interest at the rate of 10% per annum, pendente lite and future, till actual recovery from Ram Newaj. 9. Aggrieved with that order Ram Newaj had filed this appeal. 10. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and have perused the record. 11. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that actually no accident had taken place with the alleged Tractor and the appellant was also not owner of that Tractor and the Claims Tribunal had recorded erroneous findings on the point. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the claimant opposite party supported the finding of the trial Court. 12. It is to be seen that in the present case, it was originally stated that the Tractor, which had caused accident, did not bear any registration number, and that it was owned by Chandar Yadav. It is to be seen that so called accident had taken place on 3.2.05. F.I.R. of the accident was lodged at police station Inayat Nagar on 16.2.95 at 12.15 p.m. i.e. after lapse of 13 days from the date of the accident. In this belated F.I.R. also the registration number of the vehicle was not mentioned and only this fact had been mentioned that the vehicle did not bear registration number and that the vehicle was being driven by Subhal Yadav, and Chandar Yadav son of Ram Newaj was sitting in that Tractor, and on inquiry he was told that the Tractor was owned by Chandar Yadav. 13. 13. A perusal of the photo copy of the certificate of registration number paper 31-C of the record of trial Court reveals that on the date of so called accident, which is 3.2.1995, the Tractor was not registered in the name of Ram Newaj but it was registered in the names of Rajesh Kumar Pandey and Smt. Kalawati Devi Pandey at that time and it was on 16.5.95 that the vehicle was registered in the name of Ram Newaj. 14. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that in the present case the number of the vehicle was not disclosed in the F.I.R. nor the name of its registered owner was disclosed in it, and these facts were also not disclosed in the claim petition filed after lapse of five and half months from the date of the incident, and the amendment application disclosing the name of the appellant as the owner of the vehicle and its registration number was moved for the first time on 29.5.97 i.e. after the lapse of two years and six months from the date of the incident, and in this way, apparently, addition of the name of the appellant and the allegation that the accident had taken place from Vehicle No. UP 61-9358 are all afterthoughts, and so they cannot be believed. 15. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents in reply that this fact was stated in the F.I.R. that the accident had taken place from a Tractor which did not bear registration number and it was being driven by Subhal Yadav and upon inquiry it was told that it was owned by Chandar Yadav who was sitting on that Tractor. He pointed out that Chandar Yadav is the real son of the present appellant Ram Newaj and actually the owner of the Tractor was Ram Newaj appellant and its number was UP 61-9358 as was subsequently disclosed, and in this way it is abundantly clear that the vehicle was actually owned by the appellant Ram Newaj and at the time of the accident his son Chandar Yadav was sitting on this vehicle which was being driven by Subhal Yadav. He submitted that since complete facts regarding registration number of the vehicle and its ownership were not known at that time to the claimant, he could not mention these details in the F.I.R. as well as in the claim petition and subsequently when it was disclosed that this Tractor bore registration No. UP 61-9358 and it was owned by Ram Newaj, father of Chandar Yadav, who was sitting on the Tractor at the time of the accident, these facts were added in the claim petition, and in this way, it is sufficiently proved that actually the accident had taken place from Tractor No. UP 61-9358 owned by Ram Newaj upon which his son Chandar Yadav was sitting at the time of the accident. 16. Learned Counsel for the appellant further pointed out that on the date of the accident the aforesaid vehicle was not registered in the name of the appellant but at that time it was registered in the name of Rajesh Kumar Pandey and Smt. Kalawati Devi as is apparent from photostat copy of the registration certificate, and it was entered in the name of the appellant on 16.5.95 i.e. after lapse of three and half months from the date of the incident, and so it is sufficiently proved that on the date of the accident, the appellant Ram Newaj was not owner of the vehicle and actually Rajesh Kumar Pandey and Smt. Kalawati Devi were its registered owner at that time and so the liability should have been fixed upon them and not upon the appellant. 17. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length on this point and have also perused the record. 18. The Presiding Officer of the Court has taken the view that the accident had taken place with the vehicle when it had already been sold by then owners to the purchaser-appellant, but by that time purchaser could not get that vehicle registered in his name promptly and some delay took place. He observed that since the original sale letter had not been filed to show the actual date of sale and that it had been sold after the date of the incident i.e. 3.2.95, it shall be presumed that it was owned by the appellant Ram Newaj on the date of the incident. I do not agree with the above view of the Tribunal. I do not agree with the above view of the Tribunal. It is true that the title of the vehicle passes on execution of the sale letter but in the present case the sale letter has not been filed by any party. It is statutory duty cast on the vendor under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act to send information in writing within 15 days of sale to the concerned R.T.O. where the vehicle was registered that he had transferred the vehicle to another person giving complete name and particulars of that person, and the transferee is also under obligation to apply for transfer of registration certificate in his own name within a period of thirty days from the date of sale letter. In the present claim petition then owners of the vehicle i.e. Rajesh Kumar Pandey and Smt. Kalawati Devi were impleaded as respondents No. 4 and 5 but they did not contest the petition. It is also to be seen that in the relief clause of the petition there was a prayer for award of compensation against the opposite parties jointly or severally. When on the date of the incident the vehicle was registered in the name of respondents No. 4 and 5, the burden was upon them to prove by filing of copy of sale letter and other evidence that on that date they were not owners of the vehicle and that they had transferred it earlier to Ram Newaj, but no such evidence was produced by them. Under these circumstances, when there was nothing on record to show that on the date of the accident Ram Newaj appellant was owner of the vehicle, I am of the view that no liability for payment of compensation could be fastened upon him in the absence of evidence to that effect. 19. It is also to be seen that in the present appeal only Hans Raj has been impleaded by the appellant Ram Newaj and he has not impleaded other respondents of the claim petition. 19. It is also to be seen that in the present appeal only Hans Raj has been impleaded by the appellant Ram Newaj and he has not impleaded other respondents of the claim petition. Since the registered owner of the vehicle Rajesh Kumar Pandey and Smt. Kalawati Devi (respondents No. 4 and 5 in the claim petition) have not been impleaded in the present appeal, it is not possible to pass any order against them in their absence and so there is no other alternative but to remand this case for finding on the point as to who, out of the appellant Ram Newaj on the one side and the registered owners Rajesh Kumar Pandey and Smt. Kalawati Devi (respondents No. 4 and 5 in the claim petition) on the other side, are liable to pay compensation. The finding of the Tribunal on the amount of the compensation shall not be reopened and the only point for consideration would be as to who out of Ram Newaj on the one side and Rajesh Kumar Pandey and Smt. Kalawati on the other side are liable to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant. 20. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed to this extent only that the order passed by the trial Court against the appellant for payment of compensation is set aside and this question of liability to pay compensation is remitted to the trial Court for deciding it afresh after giving opportunity to the claimant Hansraj Singh as well as to the appellant Ram Newaj and the registered owners Rajesh Kumar Pandey and Smt. Kalawati Devi (Respondents No. 4 and 5 in the claim petition) to show as to who was owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident, and after recording finding on this point, the Claims Tribunal shall decide as to who is liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Costs shall abide by the result of the claim petition. ————