IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) M.A.(C)No. 2.7 of 2011 jVs^sngi Ke?ssy ^^g.^g^^ A<@^ii. ARPELLANTS ^' p^wa.-- •^' ^ Ramswarup Nirmalkar, S/o Late Dukhitram' Nirmalkar, aged about 36 years, Swarup Nirmalkar, S/o Late Dukhitram Nirmalkar, aged about 30 years, Dewarin Bai Nirmalkar, W/o Late Ashok Kumar Nirmalkar, aged about '<fwS..^ 38 years. yW.^-^^-n VERSUS RESPONDENT All R/o Village-Urla, Ward No. 56, Police Station-Pulgaon, Tahsil & District-Durg (C.G.) •United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Station Road, Durg, Tahsil & District-Durg (C.G.) CLAIIVI BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AWARD AMOUNT VALUATION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL: Rs.6,53,000/- Nil Rs. 6,53,000/- MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S.173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT,1988 ^/M isri^^ ^<?v CHHATT!SGARH. BJLASPUF iBfl: Hon'bEe Shri l.m. Quddijsi, J. & Hon'bte Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, -J. M.A. (0 No. 87 of 2011, [s Ramsv/arup Nirmaikar and others. United India Insurance Company Limted. Shri Goutam Khetraoal, counsel Torthe appeiiants. Sh" SrikumarAgrawa!, Sr. Advocata with Shrj Anand Kuma,1' Gupta, counssi ror ins rssponcisni. IRAL ORDER t lfimA»ni1s Foilowing oral order of the Ccurt was passed by uuaausi. -j_, 'his appea! has been flled against the impugned award dateo 19/01/2010 passed bythe'v'ili Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal (FTC), Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No.24/2008 dismissing the claim petition. (2) Brief facts of the case, as per the version of ciaimanis, are that on 05/02/2007 at about 09-10 p.m. deceased Dukhitram Nirmalkar vras coming from Rajnandgaon to Durg in rnotorcycle bearing reglstration No. C.G. 07/LB'10"23 after attendtng the enaagement ceremony. Suddenly unknown vehicle comina from opposite dlrectlon in uncontro'ied near Chain Sukh Dhaba, G.E. Road Sdmni caused the accident as a result of vi'hich Dukhitrarn Nirmaikar and his son As'nok Kurnar received grievous injuries. Dukhitram Nirmalkar was admitted in District Hospital, Rajnandgaon. Looking to his serious condition 'ne was taken to Sector-9 Hospitai, Bhiiai where he died on 15/02/2007. Deceased was rs emptoyee of Bhilai Steel Piant. Claimants "ave claimed compensation Rs. 6,53,000/- r^ <t--l->'••f &• —3.- ^\- (3) The claim pet'tion has been rejected on the ground that the piilion- rider was not covered and the owner was not Impleaded as a party. (4) Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (iRDA) 'nas issued circulsr dst©d 16 NQVsmb^r. 2009 to all CEOs of Gsn^ral iHSUfancs Companies since the policy in questlon was a comprehenslve poiicy. thsrsfors ths circulsr dstsd 16 Novsirsbsr. 2000 would b©sDpiicsbi9, •^ (5) For non-lmpieadment of the party the Tribunai could direct to impiead the party. The claim petitlon should not have been treated llke a Civil Suit. Section 168 of the Motor vehicles Act provides to conduct an enauiry by the Tribunal. .Rule 226 of t'ne Motor vehicle Rules, 1994 aiso (6) Section 166 (1) of the Motor vehicles Act,1988 (for short 'the Act') provides that an application for compensation arising out of an aceldent of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made by the persons mentioned therein and Section 168 provides that on receipt of an appiication for compensation made under Section 166, the Claims Trtbunc shali, after uivlng notlce OT the appiicatlon to the ^nsurer and aner giving tne partles (includlng the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hoid an inquity into tne claim or, as the case may be, eacn or the ciasms ana, suDjeci ro the provlsions ofSectlon 162 may make an award determinlng the amount of compensation which appears it to'be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunat shali speciro t'ne amount which s'nal! be by the insurer or owner or drlver of the vehicie invoived in t'ne accident or by all or any of them.as thecasemaybe. ,''--,. '•^-.^- 3- (7) Ruls 226 of the Motor Vehicie Ruies, 1994 (for short 'the Rules') proviaes ror obtaining or inrormation :nn rirt: documents necessary for awarding compensation under Section 40. it specificaily provides t'nat the Claims Tribunal shatl obtain whatever information and documents which may be found necessary from the Potics, Medical and other authorities and proceed to award the claim whether the' parties who were glven notice, appear or not, on tne appointed date. (8) The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rai Kumar vs. Ajav Kumar inother reported in 2010 (12) Scale the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paraaraph 11 as under :- "11. The Tribunal should not be a siierit specta.tor when medical evidence is tendered in reaard to the injuries and their effect, in particuiar t'ne extent of permanent disabi'ity. Sectlons 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that t'ne Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an actlve explorer and seeker of truth who is required to 'hotd an enquisy into the claim' for determining the 'just compensatlon'. The Tribunai shouid therefore take an active role to ascertain true and correct positioR so that it can assess the 'just compensation'. The Tribunal shouid therefore take an actlve role to ascertain the true and correct position so that It can assess the 'just comDensation'." (9) Therefore, it was the duty of the Tribungi to conduct an enqulry itse'f to know the real facts and the comDensation should have been av/arded only on tne basis ot determination of the facts. (10) In view of the above, we allow this appeal, set-aside the impugned award and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for decision afresh. -4 (11) Needless to mentfon that the parties shaH be aBowed to amend the pleadings, adduce (urttier evidence, fite documents or to get the documents verifled etc. and thsreafter decision shaU be taken afresh. (12) The partes shall appear bd'ore the Tribunal on 22nd Juns, 2011. The notice shall be issued by Uie Tribunal to the claimante. (13) Lower Court Record be sent-feack without further detay. (14) No order as to coste. Sd/- I-M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Misiira Judge 'yr