( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and award which came to be given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 8 (Aux.), Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 47 of 1990. The claim was preferred by widow and children of Mangabhai, who died in a vehicular accident. The accident occurred on 9-5-1989 and the vehicle involved in it was a trailer truck bearing No. GRD 2979. At about 10-00 p. m. husband of applicant No. 1 was proceeding with an hand-cart from Subhash Bridge towards his residence. As originally pleaded, the truck was driven by opponent No. 1 and on account of his negligent driving said Mangabhai was knocked down with fatal consequences. The claimants had claimed Rs. 2 lakhs.

( 2 ) IN the course of time, opponent No. 6 came to be joined as owner and opponent No. 7 came to be joined as driver of the said vehicle. This change was brought about by application Exh. 8 before the trial Court. This application had become necessary because, the R. T. O. record revealed that the vehicle was in the name of the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department of the State of Gujarat. The said Officer, on receipt of the summons, had addressed a letter to the Registrar of the trial Court which was given Exh. 6. It is disclosed by this letter by the executive Engineer that the vehicle in question was sold by public auction on 20- 5-1988 and at the time of giving delivery of the vehicle, R. T. O. Book, Insurance certificate etc. were handed over to the purchaser with Form H. The name of the purchaser is disclosed in the letter, the name being Mohamad Sherief Kasambhai kureshi. The claimants did not join the said purchaser as respondent. It seems that by the time the claim petition was filed and the letter Exh. 6 was received, there was a criminal case initiated by the police arising out of the said incident. From these papers, names of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were found out and that is how they came to be impleaded.

( 3 ) HOWEVER, before the trial Court, by filing Pursis Exh. 25 both opponent nos. 1 and 7 came to be deleted. Opponent No. 1 was originally joined as the owner of the said vehicle and opponent No. 7 was joined as its driver subsequently. At the time of the trial, however, because of Pursis Exh. 25, no driver of the said vehicle was before the trial Court and the matter proceeded on that basis.

( 4 ) THE learned trial Judge has dismissed the claim. The reason given by the learned Judge is that the Executive Engineer, opponent No. 5 has completed all the formalities after the sale of the vehicle and the person who purchased the vehicle is not joined as a party-opponent. Opponent No. 6, who has been joined as owner of the vehicle, according to the learned Judge, has successfully shown before the trial court that he is not the owner and further on, the learned Judge notes the applicants having proved the factum of accident, but in absence of non-joinder of the driver of the truck as well as the real owner of the truck, rash and negligent driving has not been proved. Hence, issue No. 1 is answered in the negative. In our opinion, this clearly discloses confusion about the law in the mind of the learned Judge. Had there been a clear-cut issue as to the ownership of the vehicle as also as to the controversy about the driver, the learned Judge could have answered the question of negligent driving in the affirmative but could have dealt with the issue of ownership as also that of the driver adequately and separately. To the extent, according to the learned Judge, that the owner is not brought on record and the name of the driver is deleted, perhaps and probably as an argument, his finding could be there pertaining to the owner and driver, but for the absence of these two persons as party-opponents on record to hold that the issue of negligent driving is not proved is a clear-cut error on the part of the learned Judge. For the reasons stated hereafter, his finding as to the ownership of the vehicle ag