AB 1863/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA Heard Mr. P. K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as we ll as Mr. A. Phukan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3. 2. By this appeal, filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Ac t, 1988, the appellant has questioned the legality of the judgment and award dat ed 19.07.2003 as passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon in MAC Cas e No. 132 of 1995. 3. The fact is not in controversy, even then in a nutshell the esse ntial fact, that would be required for purpose of appreciating the challenge, is laid thus: The appellant while driving the ASTC vehicle bearing registration No.ASX-3553 me t an accident with one Oil Tanker bearing registration No.AS-01-B/7335, in a hea d-on-collision on 22.08.1994 and had sustained severe injuries. He filed an app lication under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for receiving adequat e and just compensation. 4. The respondent No.3-New India Assurance Co. Ltd., as the insure r of the said Oil Tanker, filed the written statement and tried to resist the cl aim. In para-4 of the written statement, it has been stated that the said claim petition was not maintainable in view of the fact that the appellant had receiv ed a sum of Rs.41,572/- from the employer as per the provisions of Workmen’s Com pensation Act, 1923. 5. The learned Tribunal on assessment of the evidence as led by the claimant-appellant has abruptly arrived at the finding that in absence of the A ssam State Transport Corporation (ASTC), the claim cannot be adjudicated upon an d also held that the accident was outcome of a composite negligence. 6. Mr. R. K. R. Chouhdury, learned counsel appearing for the appell ant with sufficient vehemence argued that without any legal evidence or any sort of evidence, the learned Tribunal held that the appellant had received compensa tion under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. However, Mr. Roy Choudhury did not resent to the finding of the Tribunal that ASTC was a necessary party for adjud ication of the claim of the claimant. 7. While refuting the proposition of Mr. Roy Choudhury, learned cou nsel for the appellant, Mr. A. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 s tated that it was not the duty of the Tribunal to implead necessary party in the proceeding. Where a finding of composite negligence is a possibility, the ASTC is a necessary party and in absence of it, the claim cannot be adjudicated. T he finding of the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be faulted with. 8. On appreciation of the rival contentions, this Court is constrai ned to observe that there is no legal evidence to hold that the appellant had re ceived any compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Moreover, a n inquiry under Section 168 of the M.V.Act, 1988 cannot be terminated on such te chnical ground that one of the necessary parties has not been impleaded by the c laimant. It is the equal duty of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals that the n ecessary party is brought in the proceeding, if necessary, issuing the requisite notice on the said party on its own motion. As such this court is of the opini on that the judgment and award as impugned in this appeal cannot be sustained an d, accordingly, the same is set aside. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is also n ot in a position to adjudicate the claim of the claimant-appellant in absence of the ASTC and, as such, it would be appropriate to remit the case to the Tribuna l below with a direction that the Tribunal shall implead the ASTC as the party i n the proceeding on its own and thereafter to re-hear the entire matter after af fording the required opportunity to the newly added party and pass a fresh judgm ent and award regarding entitlement of the appellant herein. 10. With this observation and direction, this appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Lower c ourt records be returned forthwith. 11. Before parting with the record, it is expected that all endeavou rs shall be taken by the learned Tribunal below to complete the proceeding prefe rably within a period of 6(six) months.