IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal fC) No. l^ Lf ^—/2009 iTh^lQ^ B^ :1 '^ l; \^ ^ ll Appellants Claimants 2. 1 Smt. Chanchal Devi,aged about 31 years, W/o Late Kamlesh Yadav, Aakash Kumar aged about 4 years,S/o Kamlesh Yadav Ashish Kumar, aged about 18s 1/2 year, S/o Kamlesh Yadav, ^ \py.^~3. ^\y\^v ^- ^^ ..<y^ No. 2 and 3 being minor through natural ^*' ^' b" ^ •^'y Respondents driver Owner Insurer Guardian mother Smt. Chanchal Devi,aged about 31 years, W/o Late Kamlesh Yadav, 4. Kamla Devi aged about 65 years, w/o Ramiqbal Yadav, All R/o Ujiyarpur, Thana and Tahsil Manendergarh Distt. Koriya Versus 1. Ramkumar Sahu @ Chidi, aged about 22 years, S/o Nityanand Sahu, R/o Narsingpur, Thana Landbada, Distt Kendubada, Orrisa At present R/o Azad Nagar, Godripara, Q N0. 295, Thana Chirmiri, Distt. Koriya 2. Ramiqbal Yadav, S/o Chowki Yadav, aged about 70 years, R/o Ujiyarpur, Tahsil Manendergarh, Distt. Koriya 3. United India Insurance Co. Branch Office. Ambikapur, Bramhroad, Distt. Sarguja 4. Smt. Lalita Gupta,W/o Shri Narayan Gupta, R/o Bada Bazar Chirmiri, Distt. Koriya APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT h ^-UJI 1988 _^-. L Against the award dated 29/08^/09 passed by Shri H,K. Agrawal, Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Manendragarh Distt. Koriya, in MACT No. 22/08.. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. fQ No. 1542 of 2009 Appellants Smt. Chanchal Devi 85 others Versus Respondents Ramkumar Sahu alias Chidi & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I. M. Quddusi 8s Hon?ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the appellants. Shri D. N. Prajapati, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Ms Sharmila Singhai, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No.3. None for the respondent No.4. \ ORDER fOral) ( Passed on this 17th day of March, 2011 ) Per I. M.-Quddusi, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants against \ the impugned award dated 29.8.2009 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh in Claim Case No. 22^/2008, dismissing the claim petition. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the papers available on record. The, brief facts, in nutshell, are that the appellant/claimants (widow, two children and mother of the deceased, total four persons) filed an application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 27,44,000/- on the submissions that on 23.12.2007 deceased Kamlesh was coming to his village - Ujiyarpur from Nagpur by sitting in the Bolero Jeep, bearing registration No. C.G. 16-B/0344. On the way near a bridge (^ ) due to the rash and negligent driving of non-applicant No.l the vehicle collided with a road side drum as a result of which the vehicle fell down from the bridge and turned turtle. In this accident .deceased Kamlesh received internal injuries. On 24.12.2007 Kamlesh was taken for treatment to Dr. Karan, who was a hNN*»ik 8. Govt. Doctor posted in the District Hospital at Baikunthpur and thereafter his treatment continued till he died on 31.12.2007. The police has filed challan against the non- applicant No.l for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh (Ex.A/2). The non-applicant No.l/driver filed his reply submitting that deceased Kamlesh was not a passenger of the offending vehicle. On the date of accident by driving the vehicle in normal speed he was going towards Barbaspur. On the way near school at once a truck came on the bridge from the opposite side and as he suddenly used the breaks, the vehicle turned turtle. The deceased was not at all sitting in the said vehicle. The non-applicant No.2 is owner of the vehicle and father of the deceased. The non-applicant No.S/Insurance Company filed its reply submi^ting that the deceased Kamlesh had received simple injury in the accident which was cured after treatment. Subsequently, he died due to some disease which has no bearing with the accident occurred on 23.12.2007. The offending vehicle was insured in the name ofthe non-applicant No.4 (Smt. Lalita Gupta) for personal use. The non-applicant No.4 filed her reply on the submissions that she was the registered own^r of the vehicle and it was insured with the non-applicant No.3. On 6.10.2007 the vehicle was sold to the non-applicant No.2 and in the records of the transport authority the name of the owner was changed. Learned Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record arrive.d at the findings that deceased KamJLesh was not died as a result of the motor accident. The accident was alleged to have been occurred on 23.12.2007 at about 4.30 p.m. in the evening the deceased/injured was taken to the doctor on the next day i.e. 24.12.2007, he died on 31.12.2007 and the report of the incident was lodged in the police stationon 31.12.2007 itself at 13.30 hours i.e. after death of the deceased Kamlesh. It has also been held by the learned Tribunal that the postmortem report does not suggest © that deceased Kamlesh died due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident, instead it was a natural death. 9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the records we are of the opinion that the findings arrived at by learned Claims Tribunal are not based on sound reasoning. Learned Claims Tribunal has not considered the aspect that the deceased had sustained internal injury on his chest and back. His statement was recorded by the police on 30.12.2007 and the non-applicant No.l/driver was arrested on 30.12.2007 at 10.00 a.m. According to the postmortem report the 'dark discoloration along the lumber belt pressure present, slighlr blood clotted on tip of nose present'. It is well known that in normal situation if the external injuries are not seen , ,on the body patients are not taken to the hospital immediately unless the patient complain of about the pain and suffenng due to internal injuries. Internal injuries are detected in few hours or days. 10. The autopsy report conducted to the body of the deceased is available on record along with the final report. In the said report it is mentioned by the doctor that external injury has been found and has mentioned those injuries as 'dark discoloration along the lumber belt pressure present, slight blood clot on tip of nose present'. It is further mentioned in the autopsy report that both the lungs of the deceased contained white consolidated patchy spots and the pleural cavity is filled with yellowish, pleural Huid due to infection in lungs with signs of inflammation present, duration of illness was about 4-5 days. . II. The accident had occurred on 23.12.2007 and the death taken place.on 31.12.2007. Thus, the duration of illness mentioned by the physician conducting the autopsy corresponds the intervrening period between the date of accident and the date of death. 12. When the findings arrived at by the Tribunal in paragraph 17 of the impugned award is considered in jiixtaposition to the . observrations made above with respect to the findings of the doctor in the autopsy report, it is born out that the TribunaFs ^ K -^:/^ ? WiS^^"^ t ^y ^.^~^ findings are absolutely perverse. The deceased had sustained internal injuries and it developed infection which corresponds to the period ofhis illness. 13. Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 are relevant to be perused, which reads as under. " 169. Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunals. - (1) In holding any inquiry under section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. (2) The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforping the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (3) Subject tp any rules thatmay be made in this behalf, the Claims Tribunal may, for the purpose of adjudicating upon any claiin for compensation, choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of and matter relevant to the inquiry to assist it in holding the inquiry." 226. OBTAINING OF INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR AWARDING COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 40-. The Claims Tribunal shall obtain whatever information and documents which may be found necessary from the police, Medical and other authorities and proceed to award the claim whether the parties who were given notice, appear or not, on the appointed date. 14. Hon?bl,e Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar fis another { 2010 (12) SCALE} in para 11 has held that UThe Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tenderedin regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular - the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 ofthe Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a \ "'^ "v-^ 1 '^f ^^ ^:^ ^^'•''.^ neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to 'hold an enquiry into the claim' for determining the (just compensation\ The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the (just compensation'^ 15. In view of the aforementioned statutory provisions of law and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar (supra) it is evident that the parliament has enacted benevolent provisions of law in the interest of the persons who received bodily injuries or in the interest of the legal heirs of the persons who sustained death in motor accident cases. Having regard to the facts and situation and the benevolent provisions of law we are of the considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal should not have dismissed the claim petition without properly considering the medical evidence and without making an enquiry i.e. to call for the doctor to give evidence, who had conducted the postmortem if that doctor was not produced in the witness box by either of the parties. 16. For the reasons stated herein above, we allow this appeal in part, ^set-aside the impugned award dated 29.8.2009 and remit back the matter to the Tribunal for decision afresh. No order as to costs. 17. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce further evidence again in support of their pleadings and may file further documents and get tlie documents verified etc. Thereafter, the decision shall be made by the Tribunal on merits. 18. The loyer Courts record shall be sent back forthwith. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Thakur