( 1 ) IT is distressing to find that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has foisted liability to pay compensation on the appellant Bank by a one line statement to the effect that the hypothecating Bank the Bank of Baroda Ahmedabad which also steps into the shoes of the owner is vicariously liable. Except this statement found in paragraph 9 of the judgment we do not find any discussion in support of the statement that the hypothecating Bank steps into the shoes of the owners of the vehicle by virtue of the fact that the offending vehicle was hypothecated with the Bank. It is indeed surprising that the learned Presiding Officer constituting the Tribunal did not think it necessary to examine the relationship between the owners of the vehicle and the Bank arising out of the agreement of hypothecation. Except the ipse dixit of the learned Presiding Officer that the hypothecating Bank steps into the shoes of the owners of the offending vehicle there is nothing in the entire judgment to indicate that the Presiding Officer made any effort to understand the jural relationship between the owners of the offending vehicle and the hypothecating Bank. We will immediately point ou