JUDGMENT A.R. Tiwari, J. 1. This Misc. Appeal filed under Section 110(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, is directed against the award dated 29.6.81 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ujjain in Claim Case No. 66/77. 2 Shorn of the details, the facts of the case are-That the deceased Chotelal was an agriculturist. He was knocked down by a car bearing registration No. MMB-1143 at 8.30 p.m. on 12.7.77 near Village Pandyakhedi, Tahsil Ujjain. The respondents presented a claim petition on 27.10.77 claiming compensation of Rs. 50,252.50. This claim was resisted by the appellant. His main defence was that he was neither the owner nor the driver of this vehicle. On evaluation of the evidence, the Tribunal held the appellant liable and awarded the compensation of Rs. 20,250/- together with interest at the rate of six percent per annum from the date of the application. Aggrieved by this award, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. I have heard Shri G.K. Neema, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Shastri for the respondents. 4. The main grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the appellant was driver of the vehicle, in question on the relevant time. He took me through the evidence and the reasons furnished to reach such a conclusion. 5. On the other hand the Counsel for the respondents submitted that it was clearly pleaded in para 4 of the claim petition that the appellant was the owner of the vehicle in question. Parties, however, submitted that the confusion in the case is on account of non-framing the material issue regarding ownership of the vehicle in question. 6. Order 14, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as under: Order 14, Rule 1-Framing of issues: (1) Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other. (2) Materialpropositionsarethoseproposiuonsoflaworfactwhichaplaintiffmus t allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence. (3) Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue. (4) Issues are of two kinds- (a) Issues of fact, (b) issues of law. (2) Materialpropositionsarethoseproposiuonsoflaworfactwhichaplaintiffmus t allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence. (3) Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue. (4) Issues are of two kinds- (a) Issues of fact, (b) issues of law. (5) At the first hearing of the suit, the Court shall, after reading the plaint and the written statements, if any, and (after examination under Rule 2 of Order X and after hearing the parties or their pleaders), ascertain upon what material proposition of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend. (6) Nothing in this rule requires the Court to frame and record issues where the defendant at the first hearing of the suit makes no defence. 7. The adjudicating authority is required to pronounce judgment on all issues. The material propositions of fact, when affirmed by the one party and denied by the other, are required to be reflected in the issues put on trial. In accident cases, where liability to compensate comes up for consideration, material propositions are as to- (1) Who is the owner of the vehicle involved in, the accident? (2) Who is the driver of the vehicle at the time of the accident? (3) Whether accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle ? 8. The Tribunal framed issue No. 1 Aa, Ba, and Sa as reproduced below. There is no issue about "ownership" of the vehicle. This has resulted in trial less than fair. The findings recorded against the aforesaid issues are not clearly backed by the reasons detailed therefor. 9. It is, therefore, necessary to recast the issues. Issue No. 1 Aa, Ba, and Sa are thus ordered to be deleted. In place of these issues, the following issues shall be substituted. I. v dkj uacj ,e ,e ch 1143 dk Lokkeh dkSu Fkk\ c dkj uacj ,e ,e ch 1143 dks nq?kZVuk ds le; dkSu pyk jgk Fkk\ l D;k nq?kZVuk mDr pkyd }kjk mDr okgu dks mrkoysiu ,oa ykijokgh ls pykus ds dkj.k gqbZ ,oa D;k ifj.kker% NksVs yky e`rd dks pksV igqaph\ 10. I. v dkj uacj ,e ,e ch 1143 dk Lokkeh dkSu Fkk\ c dkj uacj ,e ,e ch 1143 dks nq?kZVuk ds le; dkSu pyk jgk Fkk\ l D;k nq?kZVuk mDr pkyd }kjk mDr okgu dks mrkoysiu ,oa ykijokgh ls pykus ds dkj.k gqbZ ,oa D;k ifj.kker% NksVs yky e`rd dks pksV igqaph\ 10. The other issues No. Da, Dha, Fa, 2 Aa, Ba, 3 and 4, as framed, are retained. In the face of the aforesaid issues, retrial is considered necessary. 11. In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed, impugned award is set aside and matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for retrial. The Tribunal is directed to readmit the claim petition under its original number and proceed to determine the claim petition afresh in accordance with the law. 12. The Tribunal shall give reasonable opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence as they may choose as regards the issues framed by this Court. 13. However, considering the fact that the claim petition was filed as back as on 27.10.77, it seems necessary to direct that the re-trial should be concluded expeditiously. It is accordingly directed that the Tribunal shall decide the claim petition afresh by 31.12.93. 14. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 12.7.93 to take further orders in the matter. The record of the Tribunal is directed to be returned immediately. 15. The appeal, thus, stands allowed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs as incurred.