JUDGMENT 1. A claim petition on file No. 125/2007 titled, 'Abdul Aziz Malik and others vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and others' came to be preferred before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar (in short MACT, Srinagar) for seeking compensation with respect to the death of one Shamus-Din Malik, who came to be hit by the offending truck No. JK0T-5961 owned by the respondent no. 2 as figuring in the claim petition and driven by the respondent no. 3 as figuring in the claim petition. 2. The respondent no. 2, the owner of the offending truck, is a company namely M/s Upkar Goods Tpt. Co. Pvt. Ltd., Panj Bhatkar Road, Jammu. MACT, Srinagar came to pass an award dated 29.08.2011 in favour of the claimants holding them entitled to compensation of Rs. 14,39,795/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till its final realization. The payment of the award amount was fastened upon the respondent no. 1, the United India Insurance Company Limited as figuring in the claim petition but reserving its right to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, that was the respondent No. 2 in the claim petition. Thus, is the respondent no. 2 M/s Upkar Goods Tpt. Co. Ltd. of the claim petition which is the appellant in the present appeal against the said award. Thus issue in the present appeal is inter se the co-respondents in the claim petition. 3. The respondent no. 1 herein is the United India Insurance Company Limited and the respondent no. 2 is the offending driver Ram Kumar. The nonimpleadment in this appeal of the claimants in whose favour the award dated 29.08.2011 was passed by the MACT, Srinagar is on account of the fact that the issue involved in the present appeal does not at all concern them and, as such, there non-impleadment is justifiable. 4. Now, the issue, on which the appellant has registered its grievance against the said award of the MACT, Srinagar is as to the aspect that the respondent no. 4. Now, the issue, on which the appellant has registered its grievance against the said award of the MACT, Srinagar is as to the aspect that the respondent no. 1 United India Insurance Company has been granted the right to pay to the claimants and then recover the compensation from the owner which the appellant is, proceeds on the point that the appellant was never ever served in the claim petition by the MACT, Srinagar and, as such, it had never authorized any advocate, much less Mr. R. A. Joo, Advocate, to represent the appellant. The appellant in its memo of appeal in para 2(a) (b) (c) (d) and (e) has taken a very categoric plea that it neither received any notice for appearance in the said claim petition nor it ever authorized any counsel on its behalf to represent the case and, as such, the appellant has been condemned unheard. 5. Whether the defence set up by the appellant as a registered owner of the offending vehicle to claim that the liability for the payment of compensation awarded ought not to have been shifted from the Insurer of the offending vehicle, that is, the respondent no.1 United India Insurance Company Limited to the registered owner which is the appellant, is good or bad is not for this Court to see given the fact that the appellant did not join the issue before the MACT, Srinagar. 6. A perusal of the record of the MACT concerning the claim petition reflects that on the vakalatnama filed by R. A. Joo, Advocate it is not at all gatherable as to who on behalf of the appellant is signatory to the said vakalatnama. Though Mr. R. A. Joo, Advocate was engaged by the offending driver to defend him but that does not mean that Mr. R. A. Joo, Advocate was competent to represent the appellant company. MACT, Srinagar ought to have taken care to see that the appellant was duly served in the petition. A perusal of the record of the claim petition reflects that the particulars of the appellant as respondent no.2 in the case are so sketchy that it is not readily acceptable that service of any notice unto the appellant, as being the respondent no. 2 in the claim petition, must have taken place at the given address. A perusal of the record of the claim petition reflects that the particulars of the appellant as respondent no.2 in the case are so sketchy that it is not readily acceptable that service of any notice unto the appellant, as being the respondent no. 2 in the claim petition, must have taken place at the given address. In the claim petition, the appellant is shown as mentioned by the reference to its name only without mentioning as to through whom it was to be represented in the claim petition. MACT, Srinagar has referred to a purported written statement on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed in the case in the claim petition but that also does not bear any reference to the person through whom it has been filed on behalf of the appellant and in fact there is not even any signature subscribed to the same on behalf of the appellant. A perusal reflects that it has been signed only by the respondent no. 3, that is, the offending driver Ram Kumar and none from the appellant side. 7. In the award itself, there is no reference by the MACT, Srinagar as to how the service of the appellant, as the respondent no. 2 in the claim petition, was deemed to have taken place. Thus, there is a procedural lacunae/infirmity to this extent in the award of MACT, Srinagar which militates against a fundamental principle of law that no one shall be condemned unheard without first having a due opportunity to be heard in his/its cause. Thus, the appellant being the owner of the offending vehicle and also carrying insurance cover for the relevant period during which the accident had occurred is entitled to defend its position to absolve itself from the liability of paying the compensation from its own purse rather than earning the indemnity from the end of the insurance company which is the respondent no. 1 herein. Whether or not the appellant has a valid ground for seeking such a finding in its favour is for the MACT, Srinagar to examine and adjudicate. 8. 1 herein. Whether or not the appellant has a valid ground for seeking such a finding in its favour is for the MACT, Srinagar to examine and adjudicate. 8. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid, award dated 29.08.2011 of MACT, Srinagar is set aside to the extent only it has been held that the respondent no.1 the United India Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimants and recover the award amount from the appellant as being the owner of the offending vehicle. To this extent, the matter is remanded back to MACT, Srinagar for affording an opportunity to the appellant to submit its reply/objections on record with an opportunity to the United India Insurance Company to rebut the same and as on the basis of the evidence as may be led in the case from both sides, then to determine the issue of liability of payment of the compensation whether to rest upon the appellant or the respondent no. 1 as has been awarded in terms of the award in favour of the claimants. 9. Disposed of, accordingly. 10. A copy of this judgment is to be forwarded to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar for its notice and compliance.