S G SHAH, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Gadhvi for the appellant. Respondent though duly served, has remained absent. Perused the record.

2. It is undisputed fact that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal has failed to realize the basic principle of Civil Jurisprudence, more particularly, not only his statutory judicial power but duties and responsibilities as an Officer of the Tribunal under the M.V. Act.

3. The appellant herein is original claimant in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.259/2012 (old No.81/2004) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mehsana. Whereas respondent Nos.1 to 4 are original respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 amongst which respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 are respectively driver, owner and insurer of one of the motor vehicle involved in the accident being jeep No.GAQ-5651. Whereas, respondent No.4 is insurer of another vehicle involved in the accident being motor cycle No.GAD-3907 which is owned and driven by the claimant himself which has been deleted before the Tribunal.

4. In such Motor Accident Claims Petition, except insurance company of both the vehicles i.e. opponent Nos.3 and 5 being respondent Nos.3 and 4 respectively before us, none of the other opponents being driver and owner of jeep No.GAQ-5651 had appeared and contested the claim petition. Even thereafter, when Tribunal has determined issue No.1 so as to confirm that the injured claimant has sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, the Tribunal has failed to award just and reasonable compensation. For refusing to award compensation, unfortunately, the Tribunal has assigned the reasons to the effect that the applicant has not produced his driving licence showing that he has valid and effective driving licence and that applicant has not produced the licence of driver of offending vehicle involved in the accident and also not produced registration certificate of any of the vehicle involved in the accident showing the ownership of the vehicle and has also not proved the insurance policy of any of the offending vehicle/s and, therefore, applicant is not entitled to get compensation from the opponents.

5. Surprisingly, paragraph No.2 of the impugned judgment specifically reads as under: -

"The opponent Nos.1 and 2 though served with the process, not appeared before the Tribunal and therefore, the present petition proceeded ex-part against the said opponents. The opponents No.3 and 4 though appeared, but have not filed their Written Statement to the claim petition."

6. Thereby, now it is very much clear that opponent Nos.1 and 2 being driver and owner of the jeep though served have remained absent and, therefore, adverse inference is to be drawn against them assuming that they have nothing to say against the pleadings in the claim petition wherein it is alleged that accident has took place because of rash and negligent driving of opponent No.1 and that vehicle is owned by opponent No.2. Therefore, there is no reason for the Tribunal to observe that the claimant has not produced RC Book to prove the ownership of opponent No.2 as a owner of the jeep in question and to dismiss the claim petition against driver and owner when negligence of the owner is proved on record by the claimant whereby driver and owner are vicariously as well as jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the injured victim. Similarly, when opponent Nos.3 and 4 though appears through advocate have not filed their Written Statement and thereby when there is no defence in the form of pleading objecting the existence of insurance policy for the vehicle under reference, the Tribunal has really committed a blunder in recording that since insurance policy is not proved, insurance company is also not liable.

7. It is undisputed fact that in claim petition, copy of which is produced with the appeal memo, there is categorical disclosure that opponent No.3 is insurer of jeep No.GAQ-5651 whereas opponent No.2 i