JUDGMENT: R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant-insurance company against the judgment and award rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Kheda at Nadiad ('the Tribunal' for short) dated 30.12.2003 in MACP No. 1182 of 1992, wherein the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 66,564/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on the date of the alleged incident, i.e. on 11.06.1992 at about 11.00 a.m., injured Prahaladbhai Gohel came to Kheda from his village for service and was walking on the side of the road to reach to Bharat Cement Factory and when he reached near the College, at that time, opponent No. 1 came with his scooter No. GJ-7-C-77 driving in a hectic speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed him from behind. Due to such collision, the appellant- claimant sustained injuries. Thereafter, he was transferred to the hospital and has taken treatment. The present claimant has filed the aforesaid claim petition, wherein, the Tribunal has passed the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard learned Advocate Shri Sunil B. Parikh for learned Advocate Shri Rajni Mehta for the appellant- insurance company, learned Advocate Shri Nirav Thakkar for Respondent No. 1 and learned Advocate Shri Manan Paneri for learned Advocate Shri B.D. Karia for Respondent Nos. 2-3. 4. This Court has perused the material available on record as well as the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 5. Learned Advocate Shri Sunil B. Parikh for the Respondent- Insurance Company has submitted that learned Tribunal miserably failed to appreciate that the policy was issued by the appellant to vehicle bearing Registration No. GJ-7-C-77, whereas the vehicle involved in the accident was mentioned as No. GJ-7-B-77. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the vehicle alleged to have been involved in the accident is No. GJ-7-B-77, as per the FIR and the Panchnama, whereas the claimants have impleaded driver and owner of Vehicle No. GJ-7-C-77, which is not involved in the accident. In his submission, therefore, the Tribunal could not have passed the award fastening the liability on the insurance company and therefore, he has requested to set aside the liability fasten upon it. 6. In his submission, therefore, the Tribunal could not have passed the award fastening the liability on the insurance company and therefore, he has requested to set aside the liability fasten upon it. 6. The only short question arises for determination of this Court is regarding consequence of mis-joinder of driver, owner and insurer of vehicle No. GJ-7-C-77. 7. On going through the record and proceedings, it is noticed that the claim petition has been filed by the injured claimant on 26.08.1992. In Para No. 7 of the petition, it is specifically stated about involvement of vehicle No. GJ-7-C-77. The opponent No. 2 who has been joined as driver/owner of vehicle has filed written statement, wherein in para No. 5, she has clearly and categorically denied involvement of her vehicle No. GJ-7-C-77. Similarly, the Opponent Nos. 1 and 3 have also filed their joint written statement on 03.03.1994, wherein in Para No. 11, they have clearly mentioned that their vehicle in question as narrated above No. GJ-7-C-77 is not involved in the accident. 8. The insurance company has filed written statement vide Exh. 46 on 24.06.2003, wherein more particularly in para Nos. 5, 6 and 18, the insurance company has denied the involvement of vehicle. 9. It is surprising to note that while adducing oral evidence, the claimant has changed the nature of vehicle in his deposition without explaining anything and he has narrated that the vehicle viz., Scooter No. GJ-7-B-77 was involved in the accident. However, the owner and driver of the aforesaid vehicles were not impleaded as party before the Tribunal. Not only that but during the course of trial, even the documentary evidence in the nature of FIR at Exh. 51 and the panchnama of the scene of accident at Exh. 52 have also been tendered before the Tribunal indicative of the involvement of the scooter No. GJ-7-B-77 in the accident. During the course of the hearing, learned Advocate for the respondents drawn the attention of this Court towards Mark 25/1, wherein the name of Respondent No. 3 Minaben Pritesh kumar was registered as owner of vehicle No. GJ-7-C-77, whereas, by way of preferring aforesaid Civil Application No. 13243 of 2015, they have sought to produce the certificate of registration, wherein one Lokendra Vinodchandra Bhatt stood as the registered owner of vehicle No. GJ-7-B-77 since 1994. Undisputedly, the claimant has never joined Lokendra Vinodchandra Bhatt thereof as the driver and owner of the vehicle as alleged to have been involved in the accident. 10. In view of the aforesaid factual position, the evidence on the record clearly indicates that while preferring the claim petition, the claimant has joined the driver and owner of Scooter No. GJ-7-C-77 and during the course of trial without impleading and even taking into consideration denial came to be made by the driver and owner of Vehicle No. GJ-7-C-77 so far as involvement of their vehicle in the accident in question is concerned, he has straightaway involved one another vehicle during the course of oral evidence viz. Vehicle No. GJ-7-B-77 without impleading the driver and owner of the aforesaid vehicle No. GJ-7-B-77 before the learned Tribunal as party. No effective award can be passed in absence of joinder of driver, owner and Insurance Company of alleged involved vehicle No. GJ-7-B-77 thereof. 11. In that view of the matter, the claim petition could not have been proceeded further without impleading the proper parties to the proceedings. 12. Precisely in the present appeal, the involvement of the vehicle in the accident itself is doubtful and though the driver and owner as well as the insurance company have denied the involvement of the vehicle, which has been mentioned in the claim petition and one another vehicle has been brought on the record by way of oral evidence i.e. in deposition as well as by producing FIR and panchnama without impleading its driver and owner as parties to the proceedings. Thereafter, award was passed by the learned Tribunal, which in my opinion suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties as well as mis-joinder of parties. Considering the pleading as well as the evidence adduced on the record, the said aspect can be cured before the learned Tribunal but in any case award cannot be passed against the present respondent as the vehicle No. GJ-7-C-77 is admittedly not involved in the accident as per the say of the respondent No. 1, i.e. claimant also. 13. In view of the above, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be set aside as such. 13. In view of the above, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be set aside as such. The provisions for claiming compensation in Chapter-XII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are welfare provisions in nature, wherein the victims of vehicular accidents are required to be awarded just compensation keeping in mind the intention of the legislature. The defect remained in trial can be cured by bringing appropriate parties to the proceedings before the learned Tribunal. In that view of the matter, this First Appeal succeeds and is disposed of with the following direction: 14. The impugned judgment and award of the learned Tribunal dated 30.12.2003 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Tribunal for trial afresh. The amount deposited by the appellant- insurance company lying before this Court shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal and shall not be disbursed to the claimants and refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company along with interest accrued thereon forthwith. It will be open for the claimants to proceed with the claim petition from the stage of pleading thereafter by making necessary amendment in the claim petition as well as impleading necessary parties to the proceedings. Thereafter, allowing the rival parties for adducing oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal shall pass the award afresh. R&P be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith. No order as to costs.