Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No. 1 despite service. Hence, he is set ex-parte. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award, dated 19.09.2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Shimla, (for short "the Tribunal") in MACT No. 36-S/2 of 2006/99, titled as Sh. Anupam Kumar versus Harmeet Singh Ghai and others, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant came to be dismissed (for short "the impugned award"). 3. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the grounds that the claimant-injured has failed to satisfactorily prove that the accident was outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and that the first claim petition filed by the claimant-injured was consigned to records and second claim petition was not maintainable. 4. Heard. 5. It is apt to record herein that the first claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant-injured has not even dismissed in default and was simply consigned to records. The appellant-claimant-injured was well within his rights to file second claim petition or to lay a motion for calling the file of the first claim petition from the records. 6. In a case titled as Jagdish versus Rahul Bus Service & others, being FAO No. 524 of 2007, decided on 15.05.2015, this Court has discussed the issue and held that the second claim petition is maintainable in case the first claim petition came to be dismissed in default. While applying the ratio to the instant case, second claim petition was maintainable. 7. Having said so, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 5 are set aside and it is held that the second claim petition is maintainable. 8. Coming to issue No. 1, it appears that the Tribunal has not discussed the entire evidence and the pleadings of the parties. While going through the record, it prima facie, appears that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in holding that there was no satisfactory evidence on record suggesting that the appellant-claimant-injured had suffered injuries because of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, without even discussing the entire evidence. 9. Accordingly, the appeal merits to be allowed and the impugned award is to be set aside. 10. 9. Accordingly, the appeal merits to be allowed and the impugned award is to be set aside. 10. However, keeping in view the fact that the accident has taken place in the year 1994 and the appellant-claimant-injured has been dragged from pillar to post and post to pillar and is litigating right from the year 1999, has not even received interim award under 'No Fault Liability' in terms of the provisions of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the MV Act"), I deem it proper to conclude the lis here by awarding ` 25,000/- under 'No Fault Liability' with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the impugned judgment and award till its realization in favour of the appellant-claimant-injured and against the insurer-respondent No. 2. 11. Insurer-respondent No. 2 is directed to deposit the awarded amount before this Registry within three weeks. On deposit, the said amount be released in favour of the appellant-claimant-injured after proper identification. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned award is set aside and the claim petition is granted, as indicated hereinabove. 13. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.