JUDGMENT 1. Challenging judgment and award dtd. 1/3/2013, passed in MVC No.3/2010 by Senior Civil Judge and MACT, (hereinafter referred to as 'tribunal') Maddur, claimant is in appeal. 2. Brief facts as stated are that on 30/7/2009 when claimant was proceeding as a pillion on TVS XL Moped bearing Reg.No.KA-11-S- 9735 on Bangalore - Mysore Road, a Maruti Van bearing registration No.KA-51-MF-886 driven by its driven in rash and negligent manner dashed against Moped causing injuries. Despite taking treatment, claimant sustained permanent physical disability and loss of earning capacity. Claiming compensation for the same, he filed claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against owner and insurer of both vehicles. 3. Respondent No.1 - owner of van filed objections denying liability to pay compensation and asserted that vehicle was insured with 2nd respondent and policy was valid as on date of accident. Respondent no.2 opposed claim petition on the ground that there was no compliant filed against driver of Maruti van and there was delay in filing complaint and therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation. Despite service of summons, respondents no.3 - owner of TVS Moped did not participate and was placed ex-parte. Respondent no.4 - insurer of TVS Moped filed objections stating that vehicle was not insured with it. It also contended that accident did not occur due to rash and negligent riding of rider of moped, but it was due to negligence of driver of Maruti van. 4. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed following issues: 1. Whether petitioner proves that accident was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and he sustained grievous injuries? 2. Whether petitioner is entitled to get compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. What order or relief the petitioner is entitled? 5. In support of his claim, claimant examined himself as PW.1 and two more witnesses. PW.2 was eye witness. Dr. G.R.CHandrashekar was examined as C.W.1 (PW3) and Casesheet was marked as Exhibit C.1. Exhibits P1 to P.8 were marked. On behalf of respondents, four witnesses were examined as RWs.1 to RW.4. 6. On consideration, tribunal held that claimants failed to prove that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver and dismissed claim petition without answering issue no.2. Aggrieved by award, claimant is in appeal. 7. Exhibits P1 to P.8 were marked. On behalf of respondents, four witnesses were examined as RWs.1 to RW.4. 6. On consideration, tribunal held that claimants failed to prove that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver and dismissed claim petition without answering issue no.2. Aggrieved by award, claimant is in appeal. 7. At the outset, Shri. G.V.Chandrashekar, learned Senior counsel appearing for Ms. 'Apeksha, advocate for appellant, submitted that tribunal committed grave error in not framing proper issues and also in not answering all the issues. It was submitted that as per contents of FIR - Ex.P.1, complaint was given by owner of Maruti van, seven days after accident, when claimant was under treatment in hospital. As per complaint, accident occurred when TVS moped and Maruti Van collided head-on. However, contents of ExP.3 - MV Inspector's report would indicate otherwise. It mentioned moped as sustaining damages to its front right shock absorber which was bent and damaged, thereby ruling out possibility of head-on collision. It was further submitted that owner of vehicle i.e, complainant did not refer his vehicle for inspection by Motor Vehicle Inspector, which would have fully revealed cause of accident. As tribunal did not appreciate facts in proper perspective and relying merely on result of police investigation, proceeded to dismiss claim petition without answering issue no.2. On above submission, learned Senior counsel sought indulgence of this Court. 8. On the other hand, Sri. O. Mahesh, learned counsel for respondent no.2 - insurer submitted that entire claim was against owner and insurer of Maruti van, whereas documents produced namely FIR, crime details form and charge-sheet - Exhibits P1, P2 and Ex.P5 respectively would indicate negligence against rider of moped. It was further submitted that insurer had led evidence to substantiate that accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti van. As claimant failed to establish his case, tribunal had rightly dismissed claim petition and sought for confirmation of award. 9. From the above submissions, occurrence of accident involving Maruti van and TVS Moped, in which claimant sustained injuries is not in dispute. Issuance of insurance policy by respondent no.2 with regard to Maruti van and its validity as on date of accident are also not in dispute. The tribunal dismissed claim petition on the ground that there was failure to establish negligence against driver of Maruti van. Issuance of insurance policy by respondent no.2 with regard to Maruti van and its validity as on date of accident are also not in dispute. The tribunal dismissed claim petition on the ground that there was failure to establish negligence against driver of Maruti van. Claimant is in appeal challenging said finding. Therefore, point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: "Whether non-framing proper issues for consideration and failure to answer all issues is sustainable?" 10. On a cursory glance, it is seen that while framing issue no.1, tribunal has not mentioned registration number of offending vehicle. Without identifying offending vehicle, claimant was called upon to lead evidence. Admittedly, accident in question involved two vehicles. Non-framing of proper issue would be a substantial irregularity. 11. Apart from the above, tribunal has not answered issue no.2, which would also be a material defect, in view of Rules 245, 246 and 249 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, which read as follows: "245. Framing of issues.- After considering any written statement, the evidence of the witness examined and the result of any local inspection, the Claims Tribunal shall proceed to frame issues. 246. Determination of issues. After framing the issues, the Claims Tribunal shall proceed to record evidence thereon which each party may desire to produce. xxxx 249. Judgment and award of compensation.- (1) The Claims Tribunal in passing orders shall record concisely in a judgment the findings on each of the issues framed and the reasons for such findings and make an award specifying the amount of compensation to be paid by the insurers and also person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. (2) Where compensation is awarded to two or more persons, the Claims Tribunal shall also specify the amount payable to each of them. xxx xxx xxx 12. Therefore, without any more, impugned award is liable to be set-aside and matter required to be remanded to tribunal for fresh award after framing proper issues and after giving adequate opportunity to parties to lead evidence thereon. 13. Since accident in this case occurred in the year 2009, it would be appropriate to direct tribunal to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. Point for consideration is answered in negative. Hence, I pass following: ORDER Appeal is allowed with costs. Impugned award is set aside. 13. Since accident in this case occurred in the year 2009, it would be appropriate to direct tribunal to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. Point for consideration is answered in negative. Hence, I pass following: ORDER Appeal is allowed with costs. Impugned award is set aside. Matter is remanded to tribunal for fresh consideration, from the stage of framing of proper issues. Parties are directed to appear before tribunal on 14/2/2022 without awaiting fresh notice and obtain further orders. They are directed not to seek unnecessary adjournment. Tribunal is directed to expedite disposal in accordance with law. All contentions of both parties are kept open. Registry to transmit trial court records forthwith.