IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (C) No. \^ ^OIO^U APPELLANTS ^. 2./ Smt. Manki Bai W/o Late Nanhuram, aged about 35 years, Manoj Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Nanhuram Sahu, agedabout 22 years, Both are resident of-House of Rudra Kumar Sahu, Vijay Nagar, P.S. Telibandha, Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) RESPONDENTS -9 VERSUS 1.. \\\ .....:1^;- ^^^^ ^<^y^-^\ ^5U''"\^'^\^' ^" ,..<" ^o.. ^ o^" ^^ '<?^--< ^ Devkant Sinha S/o Satyanarayan Sinha, Resident of Village - Chhuiya, P.S. Fingeshwar, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Chandrahas- Sinha, S/o Kaliram Sinha, Resident of Village - Kundel, P.S. Fingeshwar, Tahsil - Rajim, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through : Divisional Officer, Divisional Office, Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur, Tahsil and District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 L;M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble I. M. QUDDV8I & Hoa*Me G. MIWHAJUDDIN, JJ M.A(C1. No. 131/2011 APPELLANT8: RBSPONDBNTS: Snit Manki Bai and ajiofher Vs. Devkant Siaha aad ofhers MI1SC. APPEAL UNDBR 8BCTIOW 173 OF THB MOTOR VBHICLES ACT. 1988 Appearance: Mr. AKhilesh Mishra, counsel for fhe appellants. Mr. Shrikuniar Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anaiid Gupta, counsel for re^pondent iio,3, ^ PCT I.M. OUDDUSI. J, ORAL ORDBR (28.06.2011) 1. This appeal has been filed by fhe Claimaats agaiast the impugned awaixl dated 01,10.2010 passed by fhe Xth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tnbunal, Raipur (C.G) in Clauai Case No.26/2009 dismissiag fhe claim of the appellants. 2. Brief facts of fhe case as per the version of claiaiants are that on 20.01.2009 deceased Nanhu was goiag to Rajim by driviag his Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Regn. No» C.G. 04-DA/6517. On 1tie way at about 12.30 p.ia., rcsporidcnt no. 1, who was driving fhe Tractor TroUey bearing Regn. No. C.G.04-DA/6478 & C.G.04-DB/4108 in arash and negligent maaner dashed fhe motorcycle of fhe deceased as a result of which he died on fhe spofc At fhe time of accident, fhe deceased was aged about 40 years, He was workiag as / ^•^^. ^s^ "y head-mason aad was earaiag Rs.150/- per day. The claiaiaats bemg depeiidents/legal representatives have filed claim petition u/s 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles for fhe award of total coinpensation ofRs. 11,25,000/- on various Iieads. 3. We Iiave heard learaed counsel for fhe parties and have also gone tlirough fhe records of fhe Tribunal. On perusal of fhe record we fouiid fhat fhough fhe FIR was lodged against fhe driver of the unkaown vehicle but the same was lodged promptiy by one villager belonged' to fhe viUage of the deceased. The time of accident was mentioned as 12.30 p,m. on 20th January 2009 aad the iacident was reported at the poUce station Fiageshwar, Distt. Raipiar at 1.00 P.M, on the same day. The distaace belween the police station and the place of iacident is about 4 Kiloiaeters. Later on, fhe poUce iavestigated fhe case and seized the vehicle which was traced out on 16.02.2009 at 16.30 hoiirs. The charge sheet u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was also ffled by the Police in the Coiirt of JMFC, Rajim, Distt. Raipur as Cbarge Sheet No.1909 u/s 304-A IPC. The body of the deceased was sent for postmortem on 20th Jaauary 2009 at about 2,45 p.m, In fbe char^e sheet filed by the Police, naaxies of the witaesses Sitaram Sahu, Sohan Sahu, Manoj Sahu^ Durgesh Kumar Sahu, NaDld Bai Sahu, Sitaram Nagaschi aad 7 ofhers have been shown. In fhe chai^e sheet it has been meiitioned that after contiauous efforts made by the Investigafmg oflBcer, the imknowii offending vehicle aad its driver/could be found out and fhe statenient of eye-witaesses were reconied. It appears that fhe Tribxuial has not siiiniaoned the police record to ascertain fhe facts and dismissed fhe award. '\'-^/ '^ ^v '"'••••^^y A. In fhe case of Raf Kwnwr -vs- AJfay Kunwr csnd cmather decided on 18th October, 2010 and reported in IV ^tOlO) Acddcnf & Compcns<rtion Cases 815 ^SW^ HonTale the Apex Court held fhat the claim petition should not be treated as a civil suit and it is the duty of fhe Tribunal to conduct aa enquiry. In para 11 of fhe said case, it has been further held that Sections 168 aad 169 offh.e Act inake it evident fhat fhe Tribunal does not function as a neutral uinpire as ia a civil suit, but as aa active explorcr and seeker of truth who K reqiured to <hold an iaquiry iato the clami' for detenammg the <]ust coaiipensation>. The Tribunal should therefore take aa active role to ascertaia the true aad corrcct position so fhat it can assess ffae <just coDipensa^on^ 5. It has been provided ia Rule 226 of C.G. Motor Vehicks Rules, 1994 fhat fhe Claims Tribunal shall obtaia whatever information aad dc^cunients which may be foiind necessaiy fix)m fhe poUce, medical and other aufhorities and proceed to award the claun wheffaer fhe parties who were given notice, appear or not, on fhe appointed date. Furfher we cannot ignorc the provisions ofsectionl68 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides that on receipt of an appUcation for compensation made u/s 166, fhe Claims Tribunal shaU after giviag the parties (iacludiag fhe iasurer) an opporfunity of being heard, hold aa iaquiry iiito fhe clauii and subject to ttie provisions of section 162 may make an awand f determmmg fhe amount of compensatidn which appears to it to be just However ia the present case, fhe Tribunal has not conducted proper enquiiy as laid down m Riile 226 of fhe FT ,^,-;;/^&riff.3< 1 ' ./'.^^ - "':'t, f yi^itf8^ 1 ^'•, Rao C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 aad Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6. Therefore, fhe matter requires reconsideration at the end of tihie Tribunal. Hence, we aUow fhis appeal in. party set aside fhe impugaed award dated 01. 10.2010 and rcmit the matter back to the Tribunal for decision afinesh ia fhe Ught of fhe observations inade hereiaabove. 7. Needless to mention tliat the parties shall be allowed to amend fhe pleadiags, adduce 'furfhier evidence, file documents or get thie documents vexified ete., aiid fhereafter the Tribunal shall make fhe award afiresh after summoniag the police record aad conducting exiquiiy. The pardes shall appear before fhe Tribunal on 27th July. 2011, The records of fhe Tribunal shall be sent back forthwifh. No oider as to costs. Sd/- ^•l-^ddus lud^ Sd/- G. Minhajuddiis Judge 1. 1 M. 1;^