P. D. DESAI, S. B. MAJMUDAR, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the insurer of one of the vehicles involved in an accident which occurred on 31/05/1978 in Jamnagar in the vicinity of the Court building raises contentions relating to the appellants liability to satisfy an award in the sum of Rs. 97000. 00 made in favour of the first respondent (original claimant ). The insured vehicle was a motor cycle bearing No. GJP. 8123 owned by the second respondent and driven of the material time by the third respondent. The Tribunal found that the first respondent who was the pillion rider on a scooter the other vehicle involved in the accident suffered injuries in the course of the accident as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the third respondent. The award in so far as it decided the issue of negligence against the driver of the motorcycle has become final and it has also become final qua the quantum of damages awarded. The short question which requires determination as indicated earlier is the appellants liability to satisfy the award. It may be indicated at this stage that the appellant disputes its liability to satisfy the award on the ground that the third respondent who was driving the motorcycle in question at the material time was not holding a licence to drive the vehicle and that therefore there was neither contractual nor statutory liability to satisfy the award.

( 2 ) THREE contentions were urged at the hearing of the appeal. They are as follows : (1) Under Rules 299 and 300 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules 1959 it was the duty of the Tribunal to frame and record the issues upon which the right decision of the case appeared to depend and to proceed to record evidence on such issues which each party might desire to produce and that the Tribunal in the instant case committed an error of procedure in not framing an issue on a very material point namely whether the third respondent ever held or was holding a licence to drive the vehicle in question at the material time and that the failure to frame an issue on the said material point has resulted in miscarriage of justice. (2) Having regard to the failure on the part of the Tribunal to frame an issue on the material point mentioned above an issue should now be framed and the same should be referred for trial to the Tribunal with a direction that the parties should be permitted to lead additional evidence on the issue and to submit to this Court its finding with reasons therefor. (3) The Tribunal erred in law in holding that the burden was on the appellant to establish that the third respondent was not holding licence to drive the vehicle in question.

( 3 ) WE are constrained to observe that all the three contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant are frivolous and that it ill behoves a nationalised Insurance Company to found its claim in appeal on such pleas in the context of the legislation in question.

( 4 ) IT is true that it is the statutory duty of the Tribunal to ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance and to frame and record issues upon which the right decision of the case appears to depend and to proceed to record evidence on such issues which each party might desire to produce. The duty cast on the Tribunal is similar to that which Order 14 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code casts on a Civil Court. In the context of Order 14 Rule 1 it has been held that though the duty to frame issues under the Code of Civil Procedure is cast on the Court the pleaders appearing for both the parties must share that responsibility and that even if there was any failure to frame an issue on a material point on the part of the Court it would be the duty of the lawyer appearing on behalf of the concerned party to invite the attention of the Court to the omission and to raise additional issues (see Bhaskar v. Narandas A. I. R. 1956 Bombay 608 ). Therefore even assuming in the instant case that the Tribunal committed an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document