JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J.: (Oral) - The appeal is at the instance of the 4th respondent in the claim petition challenging the award passed against her. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant points out that in the original petition filed by the claimant, she had not been impleaded as a party, but later had been impleaded with no details regarding how she was sought to be made liable. The petition in clause 16 which requires the name of the owner of the offending vehicle to be set out described the second respondent as the owner of the offending vehicle. Admittedly, the first respondent, who was the driver of the offending vehicle, did not take the witness stand as to who his own master was. 2. The 4th defendant filed a written statement denying every detail of what was set out in the petition as being without her knowledge. Indeed, she had no reason to own up to any statement of denial of what was stated in the petition, for, there was no averment anywhere in the body of the petition setting out the basis for making her liable. The second respondent, who was the registered owner, gave evidence to the effect that he had sold the property on 18.01.1979 to one Parbhat Chand and in the cross-examination, he pleaded ignorance whether he remained as still the registered owner of the offending vehicle. 3. The Tribunal, while awarding compensation against the second respondent, who was the registered owner and the 4th respondent, who is now the appellant, justified its reasoning by stating that the 4th respondent did not enter the witness box and she had not also expressly denied ownership of the vehicle. 4. I do not approve the reasoning of the Tribunal when there was no specific averment in the claim petition describing the 4th respondent as the owner of the vehicle. The mere fact that she was impleaded cannot make her liable. The fact that she did not enter the witness stand also made no difference when neither in the pleadings nor in the evidence of any of the claimants, there was even the slightest suggestion that the 4th respondent was the owner of the vehicle. The award passed against the 4th respondent in the petition was clearly erroneous. The appeal by the appellant is allowed. The award passed against the 4th respondent in the petition was clearly erroneous. The appeal by the appellant is allowed. The second respondent in the claim petition against whom the award was passed could have his own remedy against the transferee in independent proceedings taking the affirmation of liability now made as creating a fresh cause of action, if so advised. ---------0.B.S.0------------