^' IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COUKT OF WHATTtSGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) «.. . M.A. (C) N0. "2-^1) /2011 (D.B.) APPELLANTS ^<g^- ^^r rp<<"-^ >•%'•l--i\- RESPON&ENTS 1. Smt. 6ayatri Katendra, Wd/o Late Arun Katendra, aged about 28 years. 2. ^Ku. Keshari Katendra, T5/o Late Arun Katendra, aged about 8 years, minor, Through- naturat guardian Smt. Gayatri Katendra. 3y Pushpend'"a Katendra, S/o Late Arun Katendra, aged about 7 years, Minor, Through- natural guardian Smt. 6ayatri Katendra. 4./--Jitendra Katendra, S/o Late Arun Katendra, aged about 8 months, Minor, Through- natural guardian Smt. Gayatri Katendra. 5,,-Smt. Puranbati,. W/o Khedu Ram Sinha, aged about 50 years. 6. Khedu Ram Sinha, S/o Mangalu Ram, aged about 52 years. All 1 to 6 residents of Village Telinsatti, Tahsil and Distt. bhamtari (C.6.) VERSUS Narendra Kumar Sahu, S/o Madho Ram Sahu, aged about 25 years, R/o Village (Sujra, Tahsil and distt. Dhamtari (C.&.) 5^ Vaman Kumar Sinhpfa, S/o ^uhled Ram Sinha.'R/o Village Bathena, Tahsil and bistt. Ohamtari (C.G.) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, BrancH Office,- Infront of Balak Chowk Dhamtari, Tahsil and Distt. t)hamtari((;.S.) MISC. APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH, BILASPUR DB: HON'BLB I.M. QUDDUSI & HOH'BLB GHULAM MINHAJUDDIN, JJ M. A. (c».No. 230 oraou Vs. RESPONDENTS Narendra Kumar Sahu aad others APPEAL UWDER SECTION 173 QF 'niE^MOTQR VBHICLES ACT, APPEAR&NCB: Mr. B.P. Singh, couasel for fhe appeBaats. Mr. A. K. Afhaley, counsel for respondent no.3. PW J.M. &UDDUSI, J Heard. CUUWRJQRA.L1 (10.05.2011) 2. Tbis appeal has been ffled by the Claimants agaiast impugned award dated 15.12.2010 passed by fhe Chief Motor Accident Claiins TnbTinal, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtan (C.G) m Claua Case No.32/2010 dismissing the claim petition offhe claimants filed u/s 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles ;Act, 1988. 3. Brieffacts ofthe case as per the version ofttie claimants are fhat on 06.10.2010 deceased Arun Kumar on fhe instructions ofhis einployer i.e., respondent no.2 had gone to ffiBage Gangrel in Jeep bearing Regn.No. C.G.07-ZD/7307 owned by respondent no.2. When he was retuming, on the way at about 7.00 a.m., fhe said Jeep which was being dnven by respondent ao. 1 Narendra Kuraar Saliu in a rash and negligent inaaner tumed turtle at viUage Maradev near a coujitry-inade Uquor Bhatti, as a result of whioh, Arun Kuiuar sustained grievous injuries and died. At fhe tune of '^/ .flJ>PELLANTS Siat. Gayatri Katendra aad oftiers accident, the deceased was aged about 35 years, he was workiag in Sapna Rewinding, belonged to respondent no.2 and was eaming Rs.3500/- per inonfh, Tlie claimaats beiag dependents/legal represejntatives filed claim petition u/s 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 fcr fhe award of compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- under various heads. 4. Ttie leamed Clauns Tribiiaal has held fhat fhe oflfendins Jeep bearmg Regn.No. e-.G.07/Z.D/7307 which was beiag driven by respondent no.l was involved ia (he accident in which fhe deceased died, but it bas not been proved that the accident took place due to negUgence on fhe part of non- appUcaat no.l. Therefore, fhe claunaats are not entifled to receive coinpensation. However, it has also arrived at a fiitdiag that if fhere is negligence on fhe part of respondent no.l, fhen the claunants are entifled to get Rs.3,40,000/- as coiupensation. 5. We have heard leamed counsel for fhe parties at lengfh aud have also gone through fhe records. 6. A perusal of fhe record shows fhat the scriber of the FJ.R. did not appear in fhe witness box, The poUce filed cbarge slieet after recordiag stateinents of fhe witaesses, but ftie Tribunal did not pay attention towards the same. Tbe fheory . on the basis of which fhe Tribunal has held fhat theie was ao negligence on the part offhe driver ofthe Jeep is beyond fhe probabiUty. A Jeep ia a speed of 40-50 Kms., per hour wfll teke a tum and damage the fencing is not beUevable. The Clauu Pedtion sbould not have been treated as a civil suit aad therefore, the Tribuaal should have conducted proper enquiry to ascertain fhe trufh as provided in Rule 226 of the C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules and Section 168 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 7. It has been provided ia Rule 226 of C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 that the Clauus Tribunal shall obtaia whatever information aud documents which may be found aecessary froia fhe poUce, inedicat and other authorities aad proceed to award fhe claiin whether the parties who were given aotice, appear or not, on the appoiated date. Furfher we caunot ignore the provisions ofsectionl68 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 whicli provides fhat on receipt of an appUcation for cojnpeusation made u/s 166, the Claims Tribunal shall after giving fhe parties (includtng the iasurer) aa opportunity of beiag heard, hold aa inquuy into the claim and subject to fhe provisions of section 162 iiiay inake aa award determiniag fhe amount of coinpensation which appears to it to bejust. 8. Furfher in case of Kaj Kumar -vs- AJay Kumar and aaother decided on 18th October, 2010 aad reported ia IV (2010) Accident & Cozupensation Cases 813 (SC) Hon'ble fhe Supreine Court held in Para 11 that Sections 168 and 169 of the Act inake it evident that ftie Tribuaal does not functioii as a neutral zunpire.as ia a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of trufh who is required to liold au inquiry iato the claiia' for determiaing the just compensation'. The Tribunal should fherefore take an active role to ascertam the true aad correct position so that it caa ./ assess fhe 'just coiapensation'. 9. In the instant case, fhe Tribunal has not conducted any enquiry ia the inanner iadicated above. Tberefore, we are of the view that the inatter requires reconsideratioa at the end of the Tribuual. 10. Hence, we atlow this appeal iu part; set aside the award dated 15.12.2010 and reuiit fhe inatter back to fhe Tribunal for decision afresh. The Tribunal shatl also consider whether fhe deceased was in einploynient of iasured/respondent no.2, who is owner of the Jeep bearing Regn. No. C.G.07/Z.D/ 7307 ajSi whether on the facts aad circucistances, fhe claim petition was niauitauiable uader the Motor Vehicles Act or fhe clauaants should have approached the Coiiunissioner under the Worknien's Coinpensation Act. The Tribunal shall also suTnTnon fhe poUce records and other relevaat records which are necessary for ascertaming fhe truth and determuiation of fhe facts. 11. Needless to inention that parties shall be aUowed to ainend the pleadiags, adduce further evidence, if any; file fhe documents or get fhe docuinents verified etc., and fhereafter the Tribuiial shatl decide fhe claun petition afresh at the earliest ia Ughtofthe observations inade herein above. 12. The records of ftie Tribunal shaU be sent back without furfher delay. Sd/- l.TVl.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G.Minha}Uddin Judge Rao