JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. Heard learned advocate Ms. Amrita Ajmera appearing with Mr. Bomi H.Shethna for the petitioner. Respondents though duly served, have remained absent. Perused the record. 2. A strange, but interesting position has come on record when by impugned order dated 11.9.2018 below Exh.3 in M.A.C.P. No.734 of 2009, the M.A.C.T. of Ahmedabad City has dismissed the claim petition against the driver and owner on the ground that petitioner has not served the opponents No.1 and 2 inspite of opportunity granted to the petitioner on earlier occasion. It is undisputed fact that opponents No.1 and 2 before the Tribunal are respectively the driver and owner of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident. The copy of claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.734 of 2009 is placed on record at Annexure-D. The perusal of such application makes it clear that the injured claimant was minor on the date of accident i.e. 23.2.2005. Probably, there was no-one to take care of his legal rights at the relevant time, the injured claimant could not file claim petition at the earliest after the accident and therefore, he has preferred the claim petition on 29.7.2009, after he became major. So far as nature of accident is concerned, it is disclosed in such application that on 23.2.2005, when petitioner was going towards his house from tution class on his bicycle, the opponent No.1 has driven the Truck No.WB-23A-4670 in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the bicycle of the petitioner, which resulted into grievous injuries on various parts of the body. Since petitioner has received grievous injuries, he has to take indoor treatment as well as treatment by way of plastic surgery and cosmetic surgery so also other operational treatment for long time and since he has to undergo pain, shock, suffering and inconvenience, he has claimed in all Rs. 4,50,000/- from driver, owner and insurer of such vehicle being opponents No.1, 2 and 3 respectively. Considering the fact that vehicle was registered in the State of West Bengal, naturally, the address of the owner of the vehicle is of Calcutta in West Bengal; whereas, address of the driver is of Uttar Pradesh and therefore, it was certainly difficult for the claimant, who has attained majority just before filing of such claim petition and therefore, notice of claim petition could not be served upon them for long time. So far as the issue of delay in filing claim petition is concerned, the fact remains that there is no limitation to file such claim petition and more particularly, in case of minor litigant, pursuant to Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963, minority is considered one of the disability in not filing any litigation within prescribed period of limitation and therefore, such litigants can initiate legal proceedings even after they attain the age of majority. Therefore, no fault can be found with the petitioner for not filing the claim petition at the earliest so as to confirm the service of opponents at the relevant time when they would certainly be available at the same address, which is disclosed by them during police investigation. 3. Therefore, practically, in such claim petition, when Tribunal has allowed an application for permission to engage an advocate, not taking appropriate steps for confirming service upon such opponents is to be considered as either inaction or negligence of concerned advocate rather than the injured claimant, who is not a regular litigant to secure any benefit in his favour, but just a victim of road accident for no fault on his part while moving in public place. Unfortunately, Tribunal has failed to grasp, realise and digest the basic principle of revised provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby the statute has made it compulsory for the investigating agency to forward the details of accident in prescribed Form No.54 as per rules under the Act to the Tribunal, disclosing relevant information, which includes number of the vehicle so also name and address of driver, owner and insurer of vehicle involved in the accident. It is also provided in the statute and thereby, it is settled legal position that on receipt of such Form No.54, the Tribunal is empowered to award just and reasonable compensation to the injured victim or legal heirs of the deceased victim, even if there is no formal claim petition filed by any of them. When statute has created such responsibility and liability upon the Tribunal, it goes without saying that for making award as aforesaid, Tribunal has to issue notices upon the driver, owner and insurer or concerned litigant at the earliest and to see that such notices are served either in due course or through the investigating agency or through any other appropriate mode of service as provided under the rules. To that extent, advocate for the claimant may be held responsible and negligent for not applying for public notice upon such driver, owner, more particularly, when vehicle was insured and details of Insurance Company is available with details of policy number. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not bothered to take care of any such situation and dismissed the claim petition against opponents No.1 and 2. With due respect to the Tribunal, I have no option, but to observed that while doing so, probably, Tribunal has failed to realise that as a City Sessions Judge, though the powers may be different, the powers of the Tribunal are altogether different, but unfortunately, the Tribunal has while dismissing the petition against opponents No.1 and 2 observed that the petition shall proceed further in its usual course against opponent No.3 Insurance Company. Thereby, Tribunal has failed to realise that claim petition cannot be proceeded further without the presence of driver and owner because the ultimate legal responsibility and liability to pay compensation is solely upon the driver and owner of the vehicle in question; whereas, liability of the Insurance Company is only to indemnify the owner of the vehicle if there is an award against the owner to pay compensation. Therefore, when claim petition was dismissed against opponents No.1 and 2 being driver and owner of the vehicle in question, cannot continue against respondent No.3 only i.e. Insurance Company of the vehicle in question. To that extent, the original order dated 12.2.2013 is certainly without application of settled legal position for such litigant and therefore, it is certainly bad in law. 4. In view of such discussion, such order would not survive in any manner whatsoever since it results into material irregularity, which has resulted into absolute illegality, which ultimately jeopardizes the basic right of the petitioner to get compensation from the concerned tortfeasor and other persons responsible for the same viz. owner being master of the tortfeasor and Insurance Company pursuant to statutory provision that all vehicles should be insured and once certificate of insurance has been issued by the Insurance Company, ultimately, Insurance Company has to indemnify the owner by making payment of compensation directly to the claimant. 5. owner being master of the tortfeasor and Insurance Company pursuant to statutory provision that all vehicles should be insured and once certificate of insurance has been issued by the Insurance Company, ultimately, Insurance Company has to indemnify the owner by making payment of compensation directly to the claimant. 5. The most disturbing situation is arising thereafter by order dated 11.9.2018 below applications at Exhs.44 and 45, when petitioner has applied for joining the driver and owner again and to permit them to serve them again. As discussed herein above, when Tribunal has not disposed of the claim petition and when claim petition was alive on record of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has no reason to dismiss or reject such application for joining driver and owner as opponents afresh when claimant has come forward to do so. At the most, the Tribunal may have imposed some condition, including cost, but refusing the petitioner to join driver and owner in claim petition, which is pending only against Insurance Company, is nothing but serious irregularity, which resulted into illegality. The perusal of application at Exhs.44 and 45, make it clear that the claimant has categorically disclosed in such application that order regarding dismissal of petition against opponents No.1 and 2 was because of some misunderstanding on their part and it was noticed only when they have tried to produce documentary evidence on record and therefore, when they disclosed that presence of owner and driver is necessary in claim petition and therefore, they would like to join them and for the purpose, when they have requested to recall the order dated 12.2.2013, there is no reason for the Tribunal to reject such prayer. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has mechanically by non-speaking order rejected both such applications solely on the ground that since there was delay in serving respondents No.1 and 2 and therefore, when their names have been deleted from the cause-title, now, they cannot be joined. Though, it is not necessary, it would be appropriate to recollect the provision of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, which specifically empowers any court, including such Tribunals to join any person as party litigant in any pending proceeding at any stage of the proceedings either upon or without the application of either party. The only condition that court may impose in terms as may appear to be just for the purpose. The only condition that court may impose in terms as may appear to be just for the purpose. The only requirement for joining any such party at any stage is specifically disclosed in such rule that when presence of any such person is necessary in order to enable the court to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in such litigation effectively and completely. Therefore, when it is quite clear as discussed herein above, that presence of driver and owner is not only necessary, but absolutely necessary for deciding the claim petition against the Insurance Company, refusal to join them as a litigant even at such belated state and even after order dated 12.2.2013 below Exh.3 is not only unwarranted, but it results into material irregularity and therefore, such order needs to be quashed and set-aside. 6. Learned advocate Ms. Ajmera for the petitioner has rightly pointed out by referring the written statement of opponent No.3 National Insurance Company Ltd. before the Tribunal. Copy of such written statement along with copy of national permit and insurance policy of the vehicle are to be taken on record. The perusal of such documents make it clear that vehicle was not only authorised to ply in Gujarat because of national permit for the purpose, but it was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd.; whereas in reply to the claim petition, the Insurance Company has categorically disclosed that on receipt of notice by the Tribunal about claim petition, the Insurance Company has addressed a letter to opponent No.2 owner of the vehicle in question calling upon certain information and documents and such letter was replied by opponent No.2. Therefore, it is clear and certain that opponent No.3 was having better and proper address of respondent No.2, though it has pleaded in reply that since opponent No.2 has not provided documents, they may not be liable to pay compensation. However, that part of the pleading needs to be taken care at the time of deciding claim petition, but such disclosure in written statement by Insurance Company makes it clear that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company when certificate of insurance is available on record and Insurance Company is aware about the whereabouts of its insured when they are able to communicate with her and when they have received the reply from her. 7. 7. It seems that opponents are aware about such position and therefore, none of them have bothered to appear before this court. Therefore, I do not hesitate to allow this petition as prayed for by quashing and setting-aside the order dated 12.2.2013 below Exh.3 so also order dated 11.9.2018 below Exhs.44 and 45 by M.A.C.T., Ahmedabad City in M.A.C.P. No.734 of 2009. 8. In view of above, the petition is allowed, whereby, applications at Exhs.44 and 45 also stand allowed. Thereby, petitioner shall amend the claim petition before the Tribunal at the earliest and shall see that notice/s upon such driver and owner are served by appropriate mode of service as provided under Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the Tribunal shall decide the main claim petition afresh in accordance with law.