^\^ 0 SN TI-IE HIGH COl/R.TOFJb'DICATUREATBtLASPVRCC.G) ^^ MISCELLA.NEOL'S APPLAL N0"' -20.34- APPELLANT NON-APPLICANT 7i ^ RESFONDENT CLA IMANT/NON APPL!CAN 4€^ J^muoi 831 @ Gulechi' S/o Dei"iBagas ,Qrte - Dhobi SrrA Champ3 831 5? K30-H Bgi Csste - Dtiobi, Age4 a!?o;rf:22 yegrs, Kumai- Releha D/o Pewbagas Dhobi A^e^ 3'bovit -14 yeai-5, Neme 5/'o Pes*»fc>dg3s Phot>i Age4 a'txjiit Vyears, Abo'/a All resi4aoca of-Villa^a Psr-po^a, Police SWior-,- Pewkgr, Tafasil- Bel-l?, Oi'stt-Da^C.G; WRSL-'S . SmtShai! Si'ngh Wi4py.i Sugriv 5103 r ^ iS-'Cjote S'sn^h Age^akpiA - 40 yfs Smt Jamuna Bai Wi4ow Fii-an Siogh Age4 3bout 60 yMrs.Bcrtb R/o 'i/lliage P3rpoiia,Post-MohBh3iha, Police Siat-tot)- DewMr, Tahsll - S3J3, C?tstt - Dal-g C.G. ,-'..-•• <y' •2..0.« V? y ''^' •^" .r- €-y <^ -> <>- Nw^g^rh, Pi'stt—Durg C.G. Shri Parmiri^er Singh S/"o Pitip Singti Panjabi. Age4 gbou-t - 21 yrs, Oocap3^iof? — Trycfc Owhe^ Peweti41'3 53'''" S/o 6.R, Sihu Truck Priver, Ti-uck No. CG 07/'ZC-237b Birfh ye tei4ence of \4il<g£Safi-b'3i?34i P"I''g, Distt- - Pul-dC.G. l-ia New !t)4i3 ir.surghcs Ci=r"p3fiy Lin-irte^, Otvisiol-i Offi'ce- Skitgi, Insut-ef-; Vehicte No.CC. OJ/ZC ..^ 23760)sy'-Dt,i-gC.G. .Miscellaneousl Appeal undei^'sectioft 173 Motor \fchicte Ad:]1°88 .-F ' • • ••'..• . ' . • ieirid Uitrievej by the ju'iaemat'it ahd award passed bv i S^&tjd! Aiidftiofi.i Ma'ter Accident^ Claims Tribunai.^atjd ^ D!stri<±Jui&&-®erndaMiF<ciaimcaseho.'9/2003. 'daterf ! ; -'f7.04-.2004- inthe ase o'-Sroi: Shail Sinah yersus ParrRihder Sinak&others. ! . telll! SaSa Appellants Respondents Appeilant ftespondents HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISeAftH AT BILASPUR &IVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUb&USI d HON-atE MR.PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. JJ. M.A. No.733/2004 'Srrt. Shail Singh & others Vs Shri Parminder Singh d others M.A. No. 556/2004 Jamuna Bai @ 6ulechi A others Vs Smt. Shail Singh <S others M". Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocote for the appeHants in M.A.733/04 and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in M.A. No.556/04. AAr. S.C. Verma, Advocate for the cppellants in M.A. No. 556/04 and respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in M.A. No.733/04, illAr, Sh.'sileridra Sharms, Advocate for the respondent Insurance Ccmpany. ORDER l-0rall /^^nd {23'u February. 2011) I ».Quddusi. J: 1. Meard. 2, M.A. Nos.733/04 d 566/04 are being disposed of by this common order as both these appeals have been filed againsT The award d'aTed 17.4.2004 passed by the learned 2 Additional AAotor Accident Claims Tribunal, (FTC) Bemetara, Durg in Claim Case No.9/2003 wherebythe claim application and cross-ob.jection fiied by the appellants in both these appeals have been dismissed on the ground thcf they failed Toestablish That the acci()ent has taken piace due to neghgsnce on the part cf non-applicant No.2/ respondent Uevendra Sahu i.^. driver ofthe offending vehicle. 3. Facts of the case, in br'ief, are that on 8.1.2003 Sugreev Singh (since deceased) was going from Parpoda to Devkarja with Soverdhan Singh on the motoreycle. On The way, The motorcycle on which they were traveling was ddshed by a truck bearing registration number C607-ZC-2367 as a result - snjd Sugreev Singh sustained grievous in.juries and died. Report of the jncident was iodged in the poiice station Saja on the basis of which offence liii.titgli ^lffiffiB. under Sections 279, 337 & 304 (A) of The IPC was registered. The claimants, who are widow, mother & daughter of the deceased have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,40.000/- under various heads. The appellants in fA.A. No.556/04 have alsp filed cross-ob.jection ciaiming themselves to be the iegal heirs of deceased Sugreev Singh and sought compensation of Rs.l5,50,000/-on various grounds. 4. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the issues fromeci by it and also evidence brou9ht on record bythe parties, refused the compensation to the appellants herein on the ground that they failed to establish the fact that accident has Taken place due to negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We ha.ve also perused the records of the Claims Tr'ibunal. 6. On ciose scrutiny of the record, we found that claim application has been dismissed on the ground that claimants have not produced the eyewitnesses of The accident in support of their case and therefore rash and negligent drivin9 could not be proved, 7. Under SecTion 168 of the Act 1988 it has been provided that the Claims Tribunal shali hold an inquiry into the claim. Even in sub-section (4)0f the Section 166 of the Act, 1988 it has been provided that the Claims Tribunal shali trent any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act. 8. Besides above, in Rule 226 ot the AAotor Vehicle Rules, 1994 (for short ^he Rules') it has been provided that the Glnims Tribunal shall conduct enquiry to ascert'airi the fact. Infact, the ctaim application under the Act, 1988 cannot be treated as a civil SLrhT. The intentiori of-the legislature is very ciear That the victim or in case of death, iegal heirs of the deceased should not be deprived of getting compensntion in genuine cases and as such conduct of enquiry by the Claims Tribunai has been provided under the Act, 1988-and the Rules made thereunder. Therefore, it wos the bounden duty of the Ciaims Tribunai to bring truth on record and if the eyeu/itnesses in the case were not produced by t'he claimants, the Claims Tribunal CQuid have ^ j|»«itfl summoned them sw tnotu to ascertain the truth during the conduct of enquiry. 9. In view of the above discussion. we have no hesitation in saying that the Ciaims Tribunai hns not followe.d the provisions of Rule 226 of the ftules as also Seetion 168 of the Act. Thus we are of theopinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Tribunal. 10. Accordingly, we allow these appeals in part, set aside the award dated 17,4.2004 passed in Claim Case No.9/2003 by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Bemetara, Dur9 (C6) and remit the matter back to the ClaiNS Tribunal for decision afresh. The Tribunat shaii provide opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, and shail foilow the provisions of Rule 226 in deciding The ciaim petition. The parries shali aiso be entitled to amend the pleodings or file documents or verify the documents aiready filed. 11. The parties are directed to appear before the Ciaims Tribunat concerned on 6Ttl ApriL 2011. 12. The RegisTry is directed to transmit the record of the claims tribunal concerned without furfher delay. ~-—'- %oshan/ Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge S.d//- Prashant Kamar Mishra Judge 'r^^-.'