JUDGMENT 1. - No one is present on behalf of National Insurance Company Limited despite service. Shri V.P. Mathur who is present in Court, is directed to argue the matter. 2. Heard. 3. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") has been preferred by the injured Shivang Dev, appellant/ claimant herein, against the order dated 2nd March, 2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputali, Jaipur District (for short "the Tribunal whereby claim petition of the claimant was dismissed on the basis of the decision of Issues No. 1 and 2 which were decided against the claimant on the point that the vehicle in question was not found involved in the alleged accident. 4. As per the facts of the case, injured Shivang Dev who was 17 years of age was going to medical shop on foot at Kotputali and he was dashed by offending vehicle scooter RJ 32 M 2568 and thereby he sustained injuries resulting 5% disability on account of injuries sustained. 5. Learned Counsel submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in deciding Issue No. 1 against the claimant and the rest of the issues were also decided against him on the basis of the finding of Issue No. 1. Learned Counsel submitted that the report of the accident was made to the police and the police challaned the scooter for rash and negligent driving, by the driver but in spite of the evidence on record to that effect the driver and the owner of the vehicle themselves admitted the fact of occurrence of the accident in the notice given to them under Section 133 of M.V. Act. But in spite of sufficient evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has erred in appreciating the fact that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle by its driver. Learned Counsel submitted that the appreciation of evidence has not been made in right perspective as such and the injury report of the injured was also not taken into consideration and therefore the impugned award deserves to be set aside and the matter may be remanded for fresh adjudication. 6. Learned Counsel submitted that the appreciation of evidence has not been made in right perspective as such and the injury report of the injured was also not taken into consideration and therefore the impugned award deserves to be set aside and the matter may be remanded for fresh adjudication. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel for Insurance Company supported the judgment of the learned Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has decided the matter after taking into consideration the evidence adduced by two parties during inquiry and calls for no interference. 7. In view of the submissions advanced and on going through the award as well as the record of the case, it is revealed that the matter needs to be decided after due appraisal of evidence on record in the right perspective. Therefore, the impugned award of the learned Tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Tribunal for deciding all the issues afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties as well as to lead evidence , if any. 8. The matter shall decided by the learned Tribunal as expeditiously as possible. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 22nd July, 2008.Appeal Allowed. *******