JUDGMENT : Suresh Kait, J. (Oral):- CM No. 14964/2013 (for delay) In view of the averments made in the application, the delay of 19 days in re-filing the instant petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of CM(M) 983/2013 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are not required to adjudicate the instant matter and prays that service upon the aforesaid respondents may be dispensed with. It is ordered accordingly. 2. The present petition is preferred against the impugned order dated 24.05.2013, whereby an application under Section VII Rule 11 CPC moved by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Tribunal. 3. The issue raised in this case is that vehicle bearing No.HR 26 M 7364 was not involved in the accident occurred on 27.04.2011 at about 7.30 pm. However, the petitioner is aggrieved with the observations made by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order, as under:- “It is well settled law that where petition under Section 166 of the Act is instituted, it becomes the duty of the petitioner to establish rash and negligent driving. To prove rash and negligent driving in a petition under Motor Vehicles Act, Tribunal need not go into the technicality because strict rules of procedure and evidence are not followed. Basically, in road accident cases, Tribunal is simply to quantify the compensation which is just rational and reasonable on the basis of inquiry. The proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a civil suit. Further, roving enquiry is not enquired to prove the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver as has been held in Kaushumma Begum and others Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2001 ACJ 421 SC.” 4. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I direct, learned Tribunal shall also frame the following issue for proper adjudication of the case:- “Whether a Honda City Car bearing No. HR 26 M 7364 was met with an accident on 27.04.2011 at about 7.30 pm with Motorcycle bearing No. DL 3SBJ 4679? OPR 5. It is made clear that the learned Tribunal shall not be influenced by the observations made in its order dated 24.05.2013 while conducting the inquiry and deciding the aforenoted issue. 6. In view of the above, the instant petition stands disposed of. 7. OPR 5. It is made clear that the learned Tribunal shall not be influenced by the observations made in its order dated 24.05.2013 while conducting the inquiry and deciding the aforenoted issue. 6. In view of the above, the instant petition stands disposed of. 7. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The Registry of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Tribunal for compliance. CM No. 14963/2013 (for stay) With the dismissal of the appeal itself, this application has become infructuous. The same is dismissed accordingly.