The appellant was not the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, thus not liable for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

1. This appeal is filed by the original opponent of motor accident claim petition [Ts (MAC) 382 of 2010] filed by the respondents herein to challenge a judgment dated 14.12.2018 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala.

2. Brief facts are as under:
The opponents - original claimants are dependants of Krishnalal Debnath who was fatally injured in a hit and run accident on 22.3.2010 on Agartala - Udaipur Road in the Agartala town. According to the claimants, the vehicle involved in the accident was a Tata Sumo Delux jeep van bearing registration No. TR 01-0556. Further, according to the claimants, the appellant Holy Cross School was the registered owner of the vehicle. According to them, there were two eyewitnesses who had seen the accident, one of them had noted down the registration number of the vehicle and reported to them upon which they had filed the claim petition seeking compensation from the owner of the vehicle.

3. Case of the appellant is that it never owned the Tata Sumo of the registration description given by the claimants. The school is falsely implicated since the claimants could not locate the vehicle which was actually involved in the accident. The appellant would point out that the police had carried out the investigation into the said incident and upon completion of the investigation filed a charge - sheet in which it was revealed that the vehicle involved was a Tata Sumo bearing registration No. TR 01 - T 0556, which also the appellant never owned or possessed.

4. Before Claims Tribunal, the claimants examined Digbijoy Debnathclaimant No. 1 as PW 1, Sankar Debnath as PW 2 and Prantosh Debnath as PW 3 who claimed to be the eyewitnesses. The appellant examined the Administrator of the school as DW 1.

5. During the pendency of the claim petition, the appellant had filed a civil suit, TS 21 of 2013, before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) for cancellation of a screen report which apparently showed the appellant as the registered owner of Tata Sumo TR 01-0556. An offshoot of the said suit reached the High Court in CRP No. 72 of 2014 which was decided by a judgment dated 17.6.2015 in which certain observations have been made and which would be relevant for our purpose. At this stage, we may only record that the learned Judge, after examining various documents and materials, came to the conclusion that such suit was not necessary and it would be open for the appellant to oppose the claim made by the claimants on appropriate grounds showing that Holy Cross School is not the owner of the said vehicle.

6. The Claims Tribunal disposed of the claim petition by the impugned judgment awarding a compensation of Rs. 4,66,036 to be paid by Holy Cross School. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant was the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. For arriving at such a conclusion the learned Judge referred to the evidence produced by the claimants as also the material collected by the police during the course of investigation. A reference is also made to the observations made by this court while disposing of the revision petition of Holy Cross School by the above noted judgment dated 17.6.2015.

7. Appearing for Holy Cross School, learned counsel Mr. S. Lodh submitted that the school has been falsely roped in. It never owned or possessed the Tata Sumo of the description given by the claimants, nor the description given by the police in the charge - sheet which, according to the police, was involved in the accident. The claimants are trying to involve Holy Cross School because the vehicle which was actually involved in the accident was neither insured nor owned by a person who could pay the compensation. Th