,.--r"^%^, '/>- ^"\ ^ _ ^ i 1 ^ v ? ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. M. A. (C.l No.527/2006 Appellants Bajaj Allianz General Insurance N.A.No.2 Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Versus Respondents Claimants 1. Chandulal, S/o Samaru Jangde, Aged about 44 years, 2. Santara Bai, W/o Chandulal, Aged about 43 years, Both R/o Khapradihkhurd, P.0. Bhaisa, Thana Kharora, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3. Santosh Kumar S/o Vishnu Prasad Sonwani, R/o Khapradihkhurd, P.0. Bhaisa, Thana Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.) Memorandym of Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Present : - Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, counsel for the appellant. Shri A.L.Singraul, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 16tn day of September, 2008) This appeal is finally heard today. 2. This is the insurer's appeal against the award dated 26.06.2006 passed by Shri B.R.Pradhan, 11th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raipur in claim case No. 49/2005. ,^^f 'tefe- — ^•^i.iS^^'^'- k^y 3. It was noticed by this Court while hearing arguments that the original award in the record does not contain paragraph 21 in part and paragraphs 22 and 23 and although the award is dated 26.06.2006 and is signed by Shri B.R.Pradhan on 26.06.2006, the order sheet dated 17.07.2006 shows that the award was in fact signed, dated and pronounced on 17.07.2006. 4. Explanation of Shri B.R.Pradhan, 11th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raipur is perused. He has passed the blame on the Court Reader for writing the date 17.07.2006 wrongly in the order sheet of 26.06.2006. Record of claim case No.49/2005 and the award dated 26th June, 2006 in the record are perused. 5. Arguments were heard by Shri B.R.Pradhan in claim case No. 49/2005 on 24.06.2006 and the case was fixed for passing of award on 26.06.2006. The order sheet dated 17.7.2006 signed by Shri B.R.Pradhan leaves no room for any doubt that the award was in fact signed, dated and pronounced on 17.7.2006 and not on 26.6.2006 because in the order sheet counsel for the insurance company has also received a copy of award under his signature on 17.07.2006. It appears that the award was not ready on 26.06.2006 and was in fact delivered on 17.7.2006 when Shri B.R.Pradhan signed and ante-dated the award. He was also oblivious of the fact that the original award did not contain complete paragraph 21 and also did not contain paragraphs 22 and 23. He ought to have taken care to read the award in its totality before signing it. Under Order 20 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is the duty of the Presiding Judge to date and sign the judgment at the time of pronouncing it. Shri B.R.Pradhan did not truthfully perform this duty and 1 '^s^ ^ ^. -;':'"' .^/ while pronouncing the judgment on 17.07.2006 signed it ante-datedi.e. 26.6.2006. The perfunctory manner in which Shri B.R.Pradhan conducted himself needs to be taken serious note of. 6. The explanation offered by Shri B.R.Pradhan passing the blame on the Court Reader is unacceptable. In any case, the original award signed by Shri B.R.Pradhan does not contain paragraphs 21 to 23. This can in no way be substituted now after the award was signed and dated by Shri B.R.Pradhan. It, therefore, becomes necessary to remand the case to the 11 Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur for hearing arguments afresh and passing of award within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and record. 7. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. The award dated 26.06.2006 passed by Shri B.R.Pradhan, 11th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.) in claim case No. 49/2005 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 11th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur for hearing arguments afresh and passing award in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the record and a copy of this order. 8. A copy of this order be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for ^^ such ordor®on the administrative side as may be deemed necessary. V- Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge s