tlW Vc .. IN THE HON'BLE HIGHCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) MISC. APPEA^liJO. \\%^-^'/2003 @fl|1e" APPELLANT (So called Owner) c.'L--",,!!,, l^ht^ •^ •"". \/^ •<\.*r;-'' R^.tB-'^.^ v-'^.... i'"vl' '..-sAM %>l['..<i.l'fick-"" '^^^M^" ..; ;a * 9*s-' RESPONDENTS ^ Ghasi Ram Sahu, Son of Lakhan Lal Sahu, aged about 32; years, R/o. Village Bori, Tahsil Doundilohara, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Smt. Chameli Bai Wife of Ganpat Sahu, aged about 32 years, IVo. Village Bori, Tahsil Doundilohara, District Durg (C.G.) — -c^, . ,Caaim_ant}^);o^^'Jr r^ QVj-ll^ Khemu Ram Son of 4^ta-fiam- Sahu, aged about 40 years, R/o. Village ^JoS>)og Pireed, Post Chourel, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg (C.G.) (Driver) MEMO OFAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THEJflQTQR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 T ; ^.^•-^"-.. s k:?^'""':s::..:^i ^ "'^^-^•^^ ^ ys ^sgs."!"^; ^'i»'a!"Kt¥i-K;s>i'g;.a"'li^.st'{:i's!i.f''"^f':-es:''-!'^sSafiss. ^ •^ HIQH C<M?Rr-OF CHHATTISa&RK AT BIL&SPOR MiESC.AP)^AL(CiJH0^11870F200S AFPELi-AKT/ $So r-slled Owr.er| HESPOSDEB'ra. Ghasi Raiu Sahu Versus Saa.t. CIiameli Bai aad aaotfaer. APPEALUNDBRSECTIOH 173 OFTHE MOTOR VEHICLB8 ACT.1988 Slueie B^ncii: Hon'ble SSui G. Miahaiuddia. J. present; SIirl Vishnu Koshta, coiiasel tbr the appeHant. Sbri Goviad Dewangaa, counsel for respondent No. 1. ORALOHDBR {Passed oa 15tt> day of Sspteaabei, 2011) This appeal bas beea filed by fhe appellant - Ghasi Ram Sahu agauist the impugued award dated 05-05-2008 passed by Addltional Motor Accjdent Claims Tribunal, F.T.C., Balod, Disti-ict Dui-g (for short 'the Clauas Tribuual') in Claim Case No. 30f2007 fastening fhe UabUily upon fhe appeBant to pay cotapeusation to fhe claunaut/respondeut No. 1. 2. Brj.cf facts of fhe case accoiuiag to fhe vei's.iou of fhe r-1nimant are fhat fhe clainiant/respondeut No.l is lesudejit of vulage Bori, Post Kasalukala, P.S. Douudi Lohara, Distrlct Dui'g. On fhe date of accident, her age 1s- 32 yeacs aud shc was workiag as agriculture labour aud was earuing Rs.1800/- per ua.onth. On 10-10-2005, the claimaut/respondeiit No.l was traveliug ua. fhe Tractor Swaiaj 735, Tractor No. 834, F.T.i. Engiae No. 331002, G.P. 00243, Chasis No. Q.V.F. 2270 5003414 fmm. Ganga Malya Teinple, Jhalniala, to VlUage Bori, after offeriug fhe prayer. On fhe way, near Vfllage Mali GIiori, the said ti-actor overturned due to rash and negUgent cLriviag of fhe dfi.ver, as a result ofwhich ftie clauuaat/fespondent No. 1 sustained grievous injuries on her body. She was aduiitted in. Chaiidulal Meuiorial Hospital, Bhiiai for treatnient. A report ofthe iacident was lodged at Police Station, Balod against the driver of the Tractor. 3. The claimant has ffled an application before the Tribuiial uiider SecUoa 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the •^'^ ^ -> Acf) claluuag a total amouut of coinpeasation of Rs. 3,02,GOO/- for flie injuries sustained bv lier in the accident. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal on a close scrutiuy of the evidence led, inaterial placed and submissious made by the pai-ties, has awarded a total amount of Rs. 72,CX)0/- agaijttst fhe respoadents joinfly aad severatly along with iutercst @ G% per auuuui froni the date ofapplicatioa tiil its payment. 5. Heard learned couusel for fh.e parties and perused tbe record ofthe Claims Tribunal as weU as fhe impugaed award. 6. The contention ofthe learned coiinsel tbr fhe appeUant is tbat at the time of accident i.e. 10-10-2005, fb.e appellaaf Ghasi Raui was uot fhe owuer of tlie Tractor in question and the Clauns Tribunal has couunitted a uianifest error of law and fact iu fasfeuiag fhe liabllily regardiag coaipeasatioii oa the appeDaut. He fiirther cojitends fhat the Tractor in question w^ dcUwered t& the appeUaiit - Ghasi Raia by the Dealer, GoodwiU Tractors, Raipur Road, Dhanitari on 23-11-2005 aad the registratiou was got done ou 31-12-2005. The sald Tractof was uot iu possessiou ofthe appeUant ou fhe date ofaccMeat i.e. 10-10-2005. 7. On the otfaer hand, learned coiiusel Sbr respondent No. l/ Clalmaut has supported the impugaed award. 8. The appellant has ffled au application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC supported by au afiGdavit along wlth fhe docuniejut before fhis Coiu-t and has prayed for taking ftie docueaeut on record as additional evidence. The said documeut is a pfaoto copy of B1U dated 23-11-2005 issued by Ctoodwill Tractors la the name ofGhasl Rajui Saliu in respect ofoue Sweufaj Ti-actor 834 laodel. 9. The appeUant - Ghasi Ram who was non-appUcaat No. 2 before ftie Claims Tribuual has in his writtea reply pleaded ia para 7 that he was aot the owner of fhe ti'actor iu qucstion on 10-10-2005 aad fhe same was purchased by tbe appeUaiit on 23-11-2005, as such the pleawhicli is beiag advauced before fUs Court cannot be said to be an after ftiought. Leariied counsel for fhe appeUaut has furfher subnutted ttiat as the tractor iu question has been purchased after avniling fkiaace &cllity froin State Bauk of ludla, ADB Brauch, Balod aud fherefore, aU thc •'^ 1-—11 <; original papers are in possesslou with the bank aad heace, the sanie could iiot be produced before fhe Claiuis Tribiinal. Looking to flie fact fhat fhe Uabflily to pay coiupeiisatiou has been disowned by the appeUaat on fbe groTind tliat on fhe date of iucxleut Le. 10-10-2005, fhe appeBaat was aot fhe owner of fhe tractor iu question and the same was not iu possession and it would be better for fhe just decisiou of the case to renut tlie inatter back to fhe Trlbunal for recousideration after afifording opportunily to both the parties to adduce furtfa.er oral and docuinentaiy evMence aiid theii to pass ao. award a&esh. 10. It is pertkient to meutk>n here ttiat fhe Claims Tribunal has not couducted proper enqimy as enjoined Upon it under Sections 168 and 169 of the Act aiid Rule 226 of U-ie Motor Velilcles Rules, 1994. As per these provisioas, fhe Claims Tribunal was duty bouiid to conduct a pi-oper enquiiy for tlie purpose of ascertauiing fhe truth for deterimning just compensation to be awarded to fhe claktian.ts twit flie same has not been done in tlie uistant case. 11. HoiiT-fle lljie Supreiue Couii ui tlie uiaUer vf Svifleusiw vs.^ciy Ktunar & dnathw, i-eported ui 2010 (12( SCAI^, liasheld in para 11 ofits decision whlch 1s quoted as under: "................................Sections 168 aiid 169 offhe Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not functlon as a neutral umpire as m a civil siiit, but as aa active explorer aiid seeker af truth who is required to tiold aa enqiiuy into the clalm' for determinlng tlie 'just compensation'. The Tribuiial should flierefore take an active role to asceilain fhe true and correct position so fhat it can assess the 'just coinpensation........" 12. In tlie result, tlie appeal is allowed in part, set aside the impugtied award dated 05-05-2008 and remit the matters back to the Claims Tribiuial for reconsideration aiid for passmg an award afresh. n 4 t i 13. Needless to mention tliat flie paities shall be provided opportuj.illy to amend tlie pleadings, adduce furtlier evidence, file documents or get ttie documents vertfled etc., on Uie basls of Uie pleadmgs already on recofd. Thereafter, Uie enquiiy, if necessaiy, shall be conducted by ftie Claims Tribm-tal as provided m Sections 168 & 169 of the Act, 1988 aiid Rule 226 ofttie C.G. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994. 14. The parties sliall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 21-10-2011. The Tribmial shaU dispose of Uie matter expeditiously as early as possible preferable wlthin a period of 3 mQnths fi-om fhe date ofappearaiice oftlie paitles. 15. Record of the Clauns Tribunal shaU be sent back wifhout ftu-ther delay. 16. Learned counsel for the appeUant has subHUtted fhat the appeUaut has deposited up tifl now Rs.50,000/-, ffae Same sliatl reiuaki in deposit, jf uot disbursed. la case it is disbursed, the same shaU be subject to fhe award to be passed a&esh. --_kj___. 17. No order as to costs. G.Minhajjudin Judge Kvr