ORDER The Insurer of the offending vehicle Tata Maxi bearing Registration No. BR-25-0461 has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dated 7.3.2009 and 23.3.2009 respectively passed by the learned District Judge-cum- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jehanabad in Claim Case No. 43 of 2003 by which the appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- after deducting Rs.25,000/- as interim compensation with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. 2. The claimant-respondent no. 1 Dr. Awadesh Kumar Sharma was travelling on the aforesaid vehicle on 12.9.2001 and due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, it met with an accident and several passengers including respondent no. 1 sustained injuries and some of the passengers also died. 3. The claim petition was filed for a compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The owner of the vehicle-respondent no. 2 filed written statement but did not deny the occurrence and it was disclosed that the vehicle was insured with the oriental insurance company (appellant) and the insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation. 4. After leading evidence the Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled to get the aforesaid amount of compensation from the insurer of the vehicle. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is apparent from the judgment that no issue has been framed by the learned Tribunal, whereas, there is mandatory provision for framing of issues under Rule 236 of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Rules, 1992. Under Rule 237 there is provision for determination of issue. He has also submitted that under Bihar Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal Rules 1961, there is also provision for framing of issues as mentioned in Rule 16 and determination of issues under Rule 17 and thereafter the judgment and award of compensation in accordance with Rule 19. He has also submitted that without framing of issues the judgment should not have been delivered and in support of his contention, he has relied upon following decision; Ram Kiran Goel Vs. the Sub-divisional Engineer, reported in AIR 2012 SC 361 , Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343 =[2011] 1 BBCJ (SC) 317, Bimlesh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. reported in [2010] 3 SCC (Cri) 1025, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. the Sub-divisional Engineer, reported in AIR 2012 SC 361 , Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343 =[2011] 1 BBCJ (SC) 317, Bimlesh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. reported in [2010] 3 SCC (Cri) 1025, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Thakuni Devi & Ors, reported in 2002 (2) PLJR 780 , and also order dated 16.2.2012 passed in M.A. No. 188 of 2010 (Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Ram Seela Devi & Ors). 6. Learned counsel for claimant-respondent no. 1 has submitted that the impugned judgment is an exhaustive one and all the issues have been considered, as such even if without framing of issues the amount of compensation has been calculated. Framing of issues is not the goal but it is only the means to achieve the goal. However, he has admitted that the Tribunal has delivered the judgment without framing of issues. 7. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the judgment it appears that although the amount of compensation has been passed on three grounds; (i) on account of medical treatment and other expenses, (ii) on account of expenses expended in future treatment, (iii) and on the account of mental agony. 8. Considering Rules 236 and 237 of Bihar Motor Vehicle Rules, 1992, Rules 16 and 17 of Bihar Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal Rules 1961 and the decisions referred to above, it is mandatory for the Tribunal to frame issues. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343 =[2011] 1 BBCJ (SC) 317 (supra), guidelines have been given to the Tribunal for considering the issues while computing the amount of compensation in case of an injured. This decision has been further considered in the case of Ram Kiran Goel Vs. the Sub-divisional Engineer, reported in AIR 2012 SC 361 (supra). 9. Considering the facts and circumstances, I find that the Tribunal is required to frame issues after taking into consideration of the aforesaid Rules and the decision in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., reported in [2011] 1 BBCJ (SC) 317. 10. In view of this fact, the impugned judgment is not fit to be sustained. It is set aside. The case is remanded to the Tribunal. Ajay Kumar & Anr., reported in [2011] 1 BBCJ (SC) 317. 10. In view of this fact, the impugned judgment is not fit to be sustained. It is set aside. The case is remanded to the Tribunal. The Tribunal will frame the issues in the light of the aforesaid discussion and give opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence, as prayed for on behalf of learned counsel for the claimant-respondent and thereafter pass the judgment on each issue considering the evidence. 11. Before parting with this order, this Court has to consider that the occurrence has taken place on 12.9.2001 and more than 12 years have passed and the claimant has only received up till now Rs.25,000/-. In that view of the matter, the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- within a period of two months which will be adjusted in final amount of compensation. 12. The statutory amount deposited in this Court is also remanded to the Tribunal for payment/adjustment in the amount of compensation to the claimant, as prayed for by the appellant. 13. Since both the parties including the owner has appeared in this case they are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 19th May 2014. Accordingly, the Tribunal will proceed with the case and expedite it. 14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Tribunal with its record. 15. In the result, this appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. ?