JUDGMENT : 1. By way of preferring the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.10.2015 rejecting his application below Exh.28, inter alia, contending that original opponent No.2 came to be impleaded as the owner of motor cycle No. GJ 4 AE 4727 involved in the accident dated 10.7.2011 raising grievance that said opponent No.2 – Tejabhai Makwana had sold away the said motor cycle in favour of respondent No.1 – Hasmit with effect from 13.6.2011 and to that effect even entry came to be mutated before the RTO, whereas the accident in question occurred on 10.7.2011 after transfer of the vehicle. The petitioner further contended that upon receipt of the notice itself, the aforesaid application Exh.28 was presented which was kept for hearing for about several years and ultimately, without affording any reasonable opportunity of stating his case, straightaway on two lines only observing that since leading and adducing evidence stage has reached, the application deserves to be dismissed without taking into consideration the contentions raised in the aforesaid application at Exh.28. 2. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and on going through the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal as well as Record and Proceedings, so far as right of the claimant to proceed against the owner of the vehicle is concerned, recently, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Naveen Kumar Vs Vijay Kumar and others in Civil Appeal No.1427 of 2018, has made it clear that the claimant has right to pursue his claim against the registered owner as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the claimant needs not to pursue the second purchaser of the vehicle for claiming compensation in view of section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 2(30) of the said Act reads as under. Section 2(30) of the said Act reads as under. “Section 2(30) “owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.” In view of the aforesaid factual position, indisputably, on the date of accident, the present petitioner was no more continuing as owner of the vehicle in question and he had transferred the vehicle in question to the subsequent purchaser and his name also came to be mutated before the RTO disclosing the owner of the vehicle in question as opponent No.1. In that view of the matter, learned Tribunal ought to have dwell upon the evidence available on record and ought to have recorded the reasoned order instead of passing cryptic order without assigning any reason. Therefor, the order passed by learned Tribunal below Exh.28 is not sustainable at law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. For the reasons recorded above, petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.10.2015 passed by learned Tribunal below Exh.28 stands quashed and set aside. Learned Tribunal is directed to decide afresh the case after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respective parties. Learned Tribunal shall also decided in light of the aforesaid recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.