JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred on behalf of appellant-dependants of deceased Ram Kripal Yadav against the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur vide judgment dated 30.4.1998 whereby the claim petition of the claimants was dismissed on the basis of finding on issue No. 1 pertaining to rash and negligent driver on the part of the offending vehicle wherein the offending vehicle was not found at fault. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was sitting at the back of the cycle which was being driven by Gambhir Singh. While crossing the road, the cycle was dashed from behind by the offending vehicle motor cycle driven by army personnel resulting in injuries and consequent death of the deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in giving the finding that the driver of the offending vehicle motor cycle was not at fault as the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the matter in right perspective. Learned counsel further submitted that it was the duty of the motor cyclist to ensure the safety and security of the cyclist and also to ensure that the motor cycle may not hit anyone going on the road or crossing the road. Learned counsel drew attention of the Court towards reply filed on behalf of the respondents in the claim petition wherein it was mentioned that the motor cycle was overtaking a tractor and hence, he could not see that the cyclist was crossing the road and the accident took place as cycle suddenly came in front of the motor cycle. Learned counsel further submitted that the maxim of 'res ipsa Loquitur' comes into play and it is for the Tribunal to see as to how the accident took place and who was responsible for the tortious liability on account of negligence. The negligence on the part of the cyclist can only be attributed when it is proved that the cyclist had the opportunity to avoid the accident but he failed to do so. 3. Per contra, learned counsel that the respondents submits that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence adduced during the inquiry and the finding on issue No. 1 whereby the motor cyclist was not found at fault calls for no interference. 4. 3. Per contra, learned counsel that the respondents submits that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence adduced during the inquiry and the finding on issue No. 1 whereby the motor cyclist was not found at fault calls for no interference. 4. On hearing rival contentions, and going through the award as also record of the case, it is revealed that as submitted by the learned counsel for s the appellant that the cyclist was hit from behind and the deceased died of the injuries sustained during the accident. The learned Tribunal has also not decided the issue pertaining to quantum of compensation and the appeal cannot be decided in its entirety for want of finding on all the issues. Therefore, in view of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and without commenting upon the merits of the case, the matter needs to be remanded for fresh decision on all the issues after giving opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence to both the parties. 5. Accordingly, the impugned award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remanded for fresh decision on all the issues and after affording opportunity of hearing and to adduce evidence, if any, to both the parties. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 29.10.2009. The learned Tribunal shall make efforts to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months. Record of this case be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith.Appeal Allowed. *******