1. Heard Mr. Zochhuana learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Pradhan for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Lalfakawma for the respondent No. 2.

2. The present appeal filed under section 173 of the MV Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 27.2.2012, passed by the learned MACT, Aizawl, Mizoram in MACT Case No. 56 of 2007.

3. The brief facts, leading to filing of this appeal is that on 31.7.2006, a motor bike bearing Regd. No. MZ-01/C-9180, driven by the respondent No1/claimant and one Taxi bearing Regd. No. MZ-01/C-5415 belonging to the appellant/opposite party No. 1 collided with each other. As a result, the respondent No.1/claimant sustained permanent disablement of 20%. The respondent No.1/claimant, therefore, filed claim petition under section 166 of the M.V Act, 1988 being MACT Case No. 56/2007 before the MACT Aizawl, Mizoram.

4. The learned MACT, Aizawl, Mizoram by Judgment and Award dated 27.2.2012 disposed of the said claim petition by directing the appellant/ opposite part No.1 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,41,819 along with interest to the respondent No. 1/claimant. Being aggrieved, this present appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite part No.1.

5. The said judgment and award dated 27.2.2012 has been assailed on amongst others, the following grounds :

(i) the claimant/respondent No.1 has failed to discharge the burden to establish that the accident took place due to negligence/default on the part of the driver or the owner of the vehicle.

(ii) The claimant/respondent No.1 failed to prove his income.

(iii) Though the alleged accident took place on 31.7.2006, the claimant/ respondent No.1 reported the matter to the police only on 9.1.2007 which is after a lapse of more than five months. Moreover, the claimant/ respondent No. 1 was admitted in the hospital only on 21.11.2006 and therefore, it cannot be establish that the injuries sustained by him were as a result of the accident in question.

(iv) The claimant/respondent No.1 has failed to prove his permanent disablement. However, the learned Tribunal without any evidence on records has accepted the Permanent Disablement Certificate.

(v) The learned Tribunal did not frame the issue as regard contributory negligence and thereby caused injustice to the appellant since the appellant did not lead his evidence to prove that there is no contributory negligence on his part.

(vi) That as the Insurer/respondent No.2 did not take the defence of breach of policy and did not even lead evidence so as to discharge it liability to prove that there was breach of policy condition, the question of casting liability upon the appellant does not arise.

6. From the Judgment and Award dated 27.2.2012 it appears that only the following 3 issues were framed :

(i) Whether the claim is maintainable or not?

(ii) Whether there was any fault on the part of the driver or the owner of the vehicle involved in the case?

(iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation and, if so, who is liable to pay and to what extent?

7. The Apex Court in Makhan Lai Bangal v. Manas Bhunta and Ors., (2001) 2 SCC 652 has held that stage of framing the issues is an important one inasmuch as on that day the scope of the trial is determined by laying the path on which the trial shall proceed excluding diversions and departure therefrom. The correct decision of the dispute largely depend on correct framing of issues, correctly determining the real points in controversy which needs to be decided. It is further held that the parties and their counsels are bound to assist the court in the process of framing issues. Duty of the counsel does not belittle the primary obligation cast on the court. It is for the Presiding Judge to exert himself so as to frame sufficiently expressive issues. An omission to frame proper issues may be a ground for remanding the case for retrial subject to prejudice having been shown to have resulted by the omission.

8. The duty of raising issues always rest on the court and it is not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document