THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.631 of 2000 ORDER: This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.02.1994 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, in O.P.No.61 of 1988. The second respondent before the Tribunal below is the appellant herein. The first respondent herein filed the claim petition against the second respondent and the appellant herein alleging that while he and another person were proceeding from Mahaboobnagar to their village on their respective cycles at about 7.00 p.m. on 02.05.1987, the second respondent came driving the motor cycle bearing No.ABB 9479 along with two pillion riders in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the first respondent, due to which the first respondent fell down and received injuries. In respect of the injuries sustained by the first respondent in the said accident, the learned Tribunal, after making an enquiry into the claim, awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit and fastened the liability on the second respondent as well as the appellant herein, considering the second respondent as the person driving the motor cycle at the relevant time and appellant being its owner. The present appeal is filed by the appellant contending that even though absolutely there was no material before the Tribunal below that he is the owner of the offending vehicle, it erroneously fastened the liability on him to pay the compensation along with the second respondent and the said finding being illegal is liable to be set aside. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and none appeared for the respondents. The first respondent in his claim petition added the appellant as the owner of the vehicle. According to him, the vehicle was, in fact, driven by the second respondent at the time of the accident. In his counter, the appellant (second respondent before the Tribunal) specifically contended that he is not the owner of the motor cycle bearing No.ABB 9479 and he was wrongly implicated in the claim petition. In spite of the said specific pleading, there is no issue framed by the Tribunal below as to whether the appellant was the owner of the offending vehicle or not. But, the Tribunal below, as could be seen from its order, held that though the vehicle number is wrongly mentioned in the claim petition, it was compared with the number mentioned in Ex.A-1 - certified copy of the F.I.R. and Ex.A-2 - certified copy of the charge sheet and since the appellant was the owner of the motor cycle, the documents of the motor cycle must be with him and on failure on the part of the appellant, the point has to be held against him considering the contents of Exs.A- 1 and A-2. I have perused Exs.A-1 – F.I.R. and A-2 – charge sheet. They only indicate that the second respondent was driving the vehicle. No reference is made in the said two documents about the appellant. There is no other evidence before the Tribunal below indicating that the appellant is the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., motor cycle bearing No.ABB 9479. Despite the said fact, the Tribunal below erroneously recorded a finding that the appellant is the owner of the offending vehicle and is liable to pay compensation. Absolutely there is no basis for the Tribunal below to arrive at such a conclusion, and as the first respondent/claimant failed to prove that the appellant is the owner of the offending vehicle, no liability can be fastened on the appellant to pay the compensation. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal below that the appellant is the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., the motor cycle bearing No.ABB 9479 and he is the liable to pay compensation to the first respondent/claimant is liable to be set aside and it is set aside. In the result, the appeal succeeds and it is allowed. No order as to costs. __________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J 02nd June, 2010 GHN