IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.99 of 2006 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD… .Appellant. Versus MALTI DEVI & ORS…… Respondents. For the appellant: Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, Advocate. For the respondents: None. ----------- 9 29.6.2010 This Misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. against the Judgment dated 18.8.2005 and the Award dated 26.8.2005 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge-cum- Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Gaya in Claim Case No.27 of 1998 / 8 of 1998. 2. The facts, in short, giving rise to this appeal may be stated in brief that the claimants – respondents who are the widow and the children of the deceased, Karu Prasad filed the aforesaid claim case claiming Rs.6,50,000/- as compensation. Their case in short is that on 6.2.1997 the deceased Karu Prasad was traveling in Bus No.WGB 6326 and because of rash and negligent driving of the Bus by the driver the bus met with an accident as a result of which the deceased got head injury and in course of treatment Karu Prasad died on 19.4.1997 in the hospital. It is further alleged that he was an employee of Eastern Coal Field Ltd. and was getting monthly salary of Rs.6800/-. 3. The appellant, New India Assurance Company Ltd., who was Opposite party no.3, filed written statement alleging that the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation because of the fact that the owner and the driver had no valid paper regarding the 2 vehicle and that the driver had no valid license on the date of the accident. Therefore, there is violation of the policy and according to Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act the Assurance Company cannot be directed to pay the compensation. The further case is that the owner engaged an unauthorized driver to drive the vehicle and, therefore, the owner is liable to pay the compensations to the claimants. 4. It appears that the lower court below at paragraph 5 of the Judgment mentioned that the point arises in this case as to whether the opposite party no.3 is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. This is the only point decided by the learned Tribunal. Further in the finding portion he has written the evidence recorded by him and lastly ordered the appellant to pay Rs.6,55,000/- without assigning any reason. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the assurance company filed contesting written statement and raised the issue that the owner had no valid papers and that the driver had no valid license and, therefore, according to section 149 of the M.V.Act the Assurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The Assurance Company also raised the point that the manner of accident as stated by the claimants is incorrect. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the driver and the owner never appeared and never contested the claim of the Assurance Company. But the learned court below has not at all framed any issue on these points. The learned counsel for the 3 appellant submitted that the learned court below also not found as to whether the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal only catalogued the evidence and directed the appellant to pay Rs.6,55,000/-. According to the learned counsel the Tribunal was required to give reasons for such direction and on what basis the Tribunal arrived at the figure of Rs.6,55,00/-. 6. The learned counsel further submitted that according to law the net pay is required to be taken into account and not the gross pay. In the present case the learned Tribunal has not considered this aspect also. It appears that the notices were issued in admission matter and the notices have been validly served on the claimants. But nobody appeared when the case was called out. 7. From perusal of the impugned Judgment it appears that the learned court below has not at all framed any issue as required under the Bihar Vehicle Rules 1992 vide Rule 236. From perusal of the written statement of the Assurance Company specific points were raised denying the allegations made in the claim application. Rule 237 lays down that after framing the issues the Claims Tribunal shall proceed to record evidences thereon which each party may desire to produce and Rule 243 provides that the Claims Tribunal in passing order shall record concisely in judgment the finding on each of the issues framed and its reason for said finding. In the present case no reason has been assigned by the 4 learned Tribunal. As stated above no issue has been framed and, therefore, it does not appear as to in which point the parties are in variance. 8. From the impugned order it further appears that the learned Tribunal has only directed the Assurance Company to pay Rs.6,55,000/-. Wherefrom this figure was arrived at has not been mentioned. For arriving to this figure what method has been adopted by the learned Tribunal is not clear. Here also no reason has been assigned as to why under what circumstance the appellant was directed to pay the said amount. There is neither issue nor finding regarding the rash and negligent driving of the bus. 9. No doubt for deciding the claim the Tribunal is required to hold an enquiry and to follow summary procedure but at the same time it is made clear that the nature of the enquiry should be more or less like a judicial enquiry and not arbitrary. 10. In view of the above finding, in my opinion, the impugned Judgment and Award are unsustainable in the eye of law. 11. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment and Award are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal for deciding the matter afresh according to law. 12. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant before this Court be returned to the appellant. AnilKr.Sinha ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. )