IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2723 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision 26.11.2009 Gurjeet Singh ...... Appellant VERSUS National Insurance Company Limited and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.S.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for Mr.Amandeep Singh Cheema, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Sandeep Suri, Advocate, for respondent No.1-Insurance Company. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): The appeal preferred by the appellant-owner (herein referred as 'the appellant') is directed against the award dated 28.02.2009, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur (herein referred as 'the Tribunal') awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.4,28,600/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of respondents No.2-claimant (herein referred as 'the claimant') and against the appellant and insurance company on account of the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident. On perusal of the record, it transpires that the owner of the insured vehicle is Gurjeet Singh-appellant. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 28.02.2009, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.4,28,600/- against respondent No.1. However, respondent No.1 was further given right to recover the same from the appellant. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that right to recover was given to the respondent-Insurance company for the reasons that the appellant committed the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. In as much as, he was not holding a valid route permit but the pleadings reveal FAO No.2723 of 2009(O&M) -2- that no such issue was framed by the Tribunal and that the appellant had committed any such violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. He has further urged that, had some issues been framed qua this fact then he could tender the evidence by way of documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 in order to prove that he was holding a valid route permit. Consequently, it could safely be observed that the judgment has been rendered invalid. The Tribunal should have framed the appropriate issues with regard to the validity of the route permit as also if the respondent-owner had committed any violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has failed to rebut this argument. It is the bounden duty of the Tribunal to frame all the issues over which the parties are at variance and the appellant could not be taken by surprise without inviting him to lead evidence on a particular issue which was never framed. The motive to frame issues is to apprise the parties as to what questions are to be solved by way of evidence or otherwise. Had there been any such issues then the appellant would have led the evidence to prove those issues. As such, the impugned award has been rendered as illegal resulting into miscarriage of justice. In the wake of aforesaid discussion, I accept this appeal; set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to the Tribunal to proceed in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 06.01.2010. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 26.11.2009 mamta-II