JUDGMENT : This matter is taken up for hearing. When it is called on there is no representation on behalf of the appellant who is also the owner of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. TR05-0697. 2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 20.02.2017, passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (2nd), Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar in Case No. TS(MAC) 14 of 2015 fixing the liability upon the owner-appellant to pay compensation in favour of the claimant-respondent No.1. 3. I have gone through the entire records as well as the grounds asserted in the memo of appeal filed by the appellant-owner since appellant remains unrepresented and there is no prayer for adjournment. On previous occasions also the matter was adjourned. On consideration of all aspects, I have proceeded to dispose of the appeal. 4. Briefly stated, one Sri Mahesh Debnath filed an application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Unakoti Tripura, Kailashahar for granting compensation due to the injury received by him in a vehicular accident which took place on 14.02.2014 at about 7:00 p.m. at Doganga road at Panisagar, North Tripura. The claimant Mahesh Debnath and another person namely Sri Nanda Gopal Nath were standing at a place near the shop of Sri Jagadish Nath at a distance of about 7/8 cubits away from the road when one Maruti Van bearing Registration No. TR05-0697 dashed the claimant as a result, he fell down on the road and received severe injuries on his person. It is the case of the claimant that the accident and the injury caused to him due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TR05-0697. He was shifted to Dharmanagar hospital for his treatment. Due to the said injury he could not walk and the competent authority has issued disability certificate in favour of him showing the disability as temporary in nature. 5. According to the claim application, the appellant Atul Nath alias Atul Debnath was the owner-cum-driver of the said offending vehicle. Accordingly, said Atul Nath was impleaded as Opposite Party No. 1 in the claim application and he had contested the suit by filing written objection stating inter alia that at the relevant point of time he was not the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, said Atul Nath was impleaded as Opposite Party No. 1 in the claim application and he had contested the suit by filing written objection stating inter alia that at the relevant point of time he was not the owner of the vehicle. The said Opposite Party No. 1, Sri Atul Nath has further stated in the written objection that one woman Smt. Bibiana Lyngdoh was the owner of the offending vehicle on the date of accident. 6. The Opposite Party No.2, National Insurance Co. Ltd. has also contested the suit and they have stated that the liability cannot be fixed upon them as the vehicle was not insured with the said insurance company. 7. In absence of the learned counsel for the appellant, I have meticulously and scrupulously scanned the written statement, evidence of the appellant-owner and the grounds set forth by the appellant Atul Nath in the memo of appeal. 8. Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-insurance company submits that the appellant has filed this appeal before this Court only to shift the liability upon the insurance company. The relief’s claimed in the memo of appeal are reproduced below: (i) Admit the appeal: (ii) Issue notice upon the respondents; (iii) Call for the lower courts records; (iv) Stay the further proceeding in connection With T.S. (MAC) 14/2015 till disposal of the present appeal: (v) After hearing both sides Your Lordship would be kind enough to set aside the judgment and award dated 20.02.2017 passed by the Ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2nd, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar in connection with T.S.(MAC) 14/2015 and to pass any other order/orders as Your Lordship deems fit and proper. 9. She further submits that during the entire proceeding, the appellant Atul Nath despite enough opportunities did not produce any driving license as well as policy document of respondent-insurance company. According to her, since the offending vehicle was not insured with the respondent-insurance company, the owner purposefully had failed to furnish those documents and the vehicle was running without any valid driving license and valid insurance policy. Inviting my attention, she submits that during the course of proceeding before the learned Tribunal, the appellant Atul Nath had filed an application asking the Tribunal to call for any competent person from the Motor Vehicle Department to confirm the ownership. Inviting my attention, she submits that during the course of proceeding before the learned Tribunal, the appellant Atul Nath had filed an application asking the Tribunal to call for any competent person from the Motor Vehicle Department to confirm the ownership. This submission of learned counsel gets support from Para 5 of the memo of appeal wherein it is revealed that Sri Atul Nath had filed a petition for adducing evidence before the learned Tribunal which was rejected. Para 5 of the memo of appeal is reproduced in verbatim. “5. For that at the time of adducing the evidence from the side of the appellant, the petition was filed to examine the registering authority of Motor Vehicle Department to come to the court for adducing evidence for conclusion that whether on the relevant date and time the appellant was at all registered owner of the vehicle. But the Ld. Tribunal rejected the prayer of the appellant which is against the spirit of law.” 10. From the records it is revealed that against the order of rejection of the said petition for examining the registering authority of the Motor Vehicles Department, the appellant did not prefer any revision or appeal in terms of the Act. It means that the appellant-owner had skipped to challenge the said order of rejection for the reasons best known to him. Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the insurance company has emphasized that learned Tribunal has not committed any error directing the owner-appellant to pay the compensation amount to the claimant-respondent No.1. 11. In the written statement filed before the learned Tribunal, the appellant-owner at Para 8 has stated thus :- “8. That, on so called date of accident the vehicle was owned by one Smt. Bibiana Lyngdoh, D/o. Sri M. Khongshei of Mawla Mawroh, Dist. East Khasi Hills, Shillong, Meghalaya and vehicle Regd. No. was ML05-A-4125 (Maruti Van).” 12. I also heard Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent No.1. 13. I have perused the examination-in-chief of the appellant which is also reproduced below in extenso : “….I, Sri Atul Debnath, S/o Sri Sachindra Ch. Nath alias Sachindra Ch. Debnath of South Padmabil, PS. Panisagar, Dist. North Tripura, aged about 37 years, by faith-Hindu, by Profession-Business, by Nationality-Indian, do hereby solemnly affirm on oath and declare as follows:- 1. 13. I have perused the examination-in-chief of the appellant which is also reproduced below in extenso : “….I, Sri Atul Debnath, S/o Sri Sachindra Ch. Nath alias Sachindra Ch. Debnath of South Padmabil, PS. Panisagar, Dist. North Tripura, aged about 37 years, by faith-Hindu, by Profession-Business, by Nationality-Indian, do hereby solemnly affirm on oath and declare as follows:- 1. That, I am the OP No-1 of the instant suit and filed my written statement against the claim of the claimant. 2. That, the contents, averment, statements, assertion and allegation made in the instant claim petition is not true and correct as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. 3. That, the so-called date of accident I am not owner of vehicle vide Regs. No. TR05-0697 (Maruti van). 4. That, on so-called date of accident vehicle was own by one Smt. Bibiana Lyngdoh, D/o Sri M. Khongshel of Mawla Mawroh, dist. East Khasi Hills, Shillong, Meghalaya and vehicle Regd. No. was ML05-A-4125 (Maruti Van). 5. That, I am owner of vehicle vide Regd. No. TR05-0697 on and from 22-02-2014 A.D. 6. That, the D.T.O., North Tripura, submitted some documents in C/W this suit as well as I also submitted some documents which may kindly be marked as exhibit…….” 14. On reading the evidence of the appellant-owner of the vehicle, I find the appellant was the driver-cum-owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TR05-0697 at the relevant point of time of accident. His contention was that on the date and time of accident, he was not the owner but one Bibiana Lyngdoh of Meghalaya was the owner and at that time the vehicle’s Registration No. was ML05-A-4125 (Maruti Van). In my opinion, the burden is entirely lies upon him to prove the said fact during the course of proceeding before the learned Tribunal but he miserably failed to discharge his burden. The appellant also has admitted at Para 6 of his examination-in-chief that D.T.O. i.e. the Deputy Transport Officer, North Tripura has submitted some documents in connection with the suit. I have perused the L.C. records and it is transpired from a copy of a letter of D.T.O., Dharmanagar, North Tripura, dated 16.08.2016 that the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TR05-0967 was Sri Atul Debnath and in that letter a screening report is also annexed describing the nature of the vehicle and other details. 15. I have perused the L.C. records and it is transpired from a copy of a letter of D.T.O., Dharmanagar, North Tripura, dated 16.08.2016 that the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TR05-0967 was Sri Atul Debnath and in that letter a screening report is also annexed describing the nature of the vehicle and other details. 15. More so, if it was the fact, then, the appellant could have impleaded said Bibiana Lyngdoh of Shillong, Meghalaya as a party to the suit during the course of proceeding in the Tribunal. But he also failed to do so. 16. In the memo of appeal, the grievances expressed by the appellant are that the learned Tribunal without issuing any process to the actual owner of the vehicle fixed the liability upon the appellant. This ground has no force in the eye of law. The duty casts upon the party who asserts the same by filing appropriate application. It is not the duty of the Court or Tribunal to issue process against anyone unless and until appropriate steps are taken in this regard by any of the parties to the suit in accordance with law. The fact of the present case does not warrant the Tribunal to issue summons against a person who was not even impleaded as a party to the suit by the appellant-owner. The Courts or Tribunal suo motu will not issue any process/summons to any persons unless and until such person is required by some of the parties. 17. From the nature of evidence led by the appellant-owner, it is crystal clear that he was the owner of the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time of accident and the learned Tribunal has not committed any wrong to hold the appellant-owner to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant. The learned Tribunal in his judgment has clearly stated that the appellant who is the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle had failed to exhibit any driving license or insurance certificate from his side. The claimant-petitioner, the respondent No.1 herein, has also failed to prove that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent-insurance company. 18. In the backdrop of the aforestated facts, I find no infirmity in fixing liability upon the owner and directing him by the Tribunal to pay the amount of Rs. The claimant-petitioner, the respondent No.1 herein, has also failed to prove that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent-insurance company. 18. In the backdrop of the aforestated facts, I find no infirmity in fixing liability upon the owner and directing him by the Tribunal to pay the amount of Rs. 2,28,200/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty eight thousand two hundred) along with interest @ Rs.7% per annum to the claimant. 19. Hence, the judgment and award dated 20.02.2017, passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (2nd), Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar in Case No. TS(MAC) 14 of 2015 do not call for any interference and is hereby upheld. 20. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the owner is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. 21. The appellant-owner is directed to pay the compensation amount to the claimant-respondent No.1 within a period of three months from today. 22. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of this judgment.