ffh^ ^ HK3H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SinaleBench : Hon'ble Shri Dllio Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Appellant Non-apDlicant No.2 Resoondents MA.ftto.1066/2003 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Anupama Chouk, Jagadalpur, Bastar (C.G.) Versus 1. Raj Kumar Jha, S/o Ramanand Jha, R/o Dalpat Sagar Ward, Jagadalpur, Non-apDlicant No.1 2. Sardar Malkit Singh, S/o Sadhu Sir^h, aged % yeare, R/o Gandhl Nagar Ward, Jagadalpur, Distrrct Bastar (C.G.) ApDlicant APPEALUNDER SECTION 173 OFMOTOR VEHICLEACT. 1988 Present: Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, counsel for the appellant. Shri H.SAhluwalia, counsel for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 22.07.2008) Heard finally. 2. Record of Claim Case No.7/2002 of the Court of 4"' Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Jagdalpur (henceforth 'the Tribunal') is perused. 3. Application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by tt»e insufance company was altowed by the Tribunal on 3.9.2003. 4. A perusal of the record shows that respondent No.2/claimant had filed an applteatfon under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that in an accklent that hadoccurred on 22.7.2000 due to rash and negligent driving <rf Tata Sumo No. M.P. 25 - B -1298 by respondent No.l/driver, he had sustained grievous injury in the right hand. The respondents specifically ^SI'; "^a^i^ii.^ .„,. u^. denied the above fact in the written statement. The Tribunal framed i^ue No.1 as folkwvs: 1- ^IT R'fl'* 22/10/2000 ^t Tr*l W^ W^-ff ^f '?RT 4 ePItPT 2 ^ 3RI^^ WO-1 ^ i?ii4«iidl ^ ^re^r w a»o 1}*K|lft025—^t/1298'SSf^ ^ Ix'IW'feM ^tfd-ll ^ fiwf w^s wt ^rfN sw^ qte w< ? 5. In his testimony paragraph 1, the respondent No.2/claimant deposed that the accident had occurred in the month of July. tn ttiis manner, not only the pleadings but the evidence of the claimant related to accident Uiat had occurred in the month of July and not on 22.10.2000. The Tribtmal has thus formulated issue No.1 confra(y to the pleadings and answered the same in the affirmative. The Tribunal, therefore, ought to have framed an issue whether the accident had occurred on 22.07.2000 due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. M.P. 25 - B -1298 by non-applicant No.1 which resulted in grievous injury to the applicanf? 6. Shri H.SAhluwalia, teamed counsel for respondent No.2/claimant argued that due to a typographteal error the date <rf accident was menfioned as22.07.20)0 in the applteation under Section 166ofthe ^4otor Vehicles Act. Learned counsel further submitted that inadverterrtly the respondent No.2/claimant white deposing before the Tribunal also stated that the accident had occurred in the month of July. The award passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained in tte eye of lawas it could not frame an issu® and also permit the claimant to tead doeumentary evidence contrary to the pleadings. Since the entiredocumentary evktence of the lodging of F.I.R. and also the injury sustained by the claimant related to an accklent which had occurred on 22.10.2000, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal which pertains to accident dated 22.07.2000 is liable to be set aside. l.iil"'^ ii,.i'13'- Ijf i '1^1 ^ ' ^^ "Gi«!fe,. -a- 7. In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned award dated 17.09.2003 is set aside and Uie matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to give opportunity to the parties to amend the pleadings relating to the date of accident. The Tribunal shall also give opportunity to the parties to lead evidence thereafter. Theappetlant/insurer may iniUate proceedings to recover the compensation, if any, paid under the impugned award to the respondent No.2/Claimant. -_— Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge