w (JV {E IN THE i-ION'BLE HIGH COURT OF CH%TTISG&RE~I AT BILASPUR. Misc. Appeal No. Miq/ of 2004 mvisiw'gmmh APP ELL IaNTS Prabha Bai aged 37 years, widow CLAIIXIMNTS of Balmiki. Umashankar aged 14 years. Jeevan Lal aged ll years Pooja aged 9 years. Pratima aed l8'years, (£ppellant N0. 2 to 4 minors thrsug— natural‘guardian motr i.e. appelanNo.l Prabha Bai) all to 5 ga§ & daughter of Balmiki, reSident of villge P arSada, Police Stion— P amg arh Di stri ct J anj g—Ch arrp a. RE SPOND NOI‘JmAPP S ta i-r VEBSJ S b l. 3 n Sushil Kumar aged 3 years son of 6’7 Beniram, resident of Modadih (Lafarge) Parsada, Police tation Pamgarh, Distt. Jnjgir~Champa. V RafrpraSad aged 2O years son of Sukdev Patel, residnt of Parsada Police Station Pamgarh, District Janj girr- Champ a. Q ; United India Insurance Company Limitedthrough -= Branch Manager Kc rb @PEAL UNDBBR SECTION OF MOTOR VEHICLE$ T a / ; g h he lt 2 a EN TS LI C£N T S a 2. e / 3. x“ a. 1%‘y AC 1988a HIGH COURTOE£HHATTISGARH AT \BitAsPUR W DIVISION BENCH: ’ HON'BLE MR, I,M.QUDDU5I 8; HON'BLE MR.GULAM MINHAJUODIN, JJ M.A. No.422/2004 Pmbha Bai and o‘rhers Vs Raspandwrrs Sushil Kumar- and other-s Present: Mr. Vipm Sen Agnrwal, Advocate for me appellams. Mr. V. Pmdhnn, Advocafe for The respanden‘l's No.1 & 2. ’ Mr. H.B. Agarwal, 5r. Adv. with Mr. P. Agarwal, Adv. for the respondent No.3. ORDER car-an (7* Juiy, 2011) I.M. Quddusi, J: 1. Heard. 2. Appellanfs have filed this appeal against fhe award dated 18.3.2004 passed by the learned Addi‘rional Mofor Accidenf Claims Tribunal, Janjgir, Disfricf Janjgir-‘Champa (for shor‘r “the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.19/03. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 31.3.2003 when Balmiloi,.Chandrakar (since deceased) was returning "ro his hause si‘rm'l‘ed at Parsada on his moforcyele bearing regisfrafion number MP26-Z'277é, his moiorm/cle was dashed by The driver of tractor bearing registration No. Céll-ZG‘452 as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries md died on the spot. Report of the incident was lodged in Police Station Pamgarh. The claimants filed claim application seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.14,15,000/— on the ground that they were dependent on the deceased, who was sole earning member in the family, and due to his death they have suffered loss of income. 4. The Claims Tribunal vide impugned award dismissed the claim application on the ground that since there is no identification of the vehicle and its driver, therefore, none of the non-applicants can be held liable to pay compensation. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. ' 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that though report was lodged on 16.4.2003 but on the date of accident itself i.e. in the intervening night of 31.3.2003 1.4.2003, information regarding acciden‘r of the mensed wifh unknown vehicle was given 1'0 fhe potice and thereafter on 142003 The police had sen? dead body of the deceased for postmortem examme'hon He has further submitted that the pohce had mvestuguted the matter and traced-out the tractor-trailey & its dmver nameiy Rempmsad and after conclusnon of the inves'hgatlon flied the charge sheet egmnst hm! under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. He has further submitted that as per opinion of the Medical Officer, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased, the death of the deceased was due to accident in question. . Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that first information report was lodged on 16.4.2003 i.e. after 16 days from the date of accident and therefore the claim petition has rightly been rejected. But we do not agree with the contention raised by the learnedicounsel for the respondent-Insurance Company for the reason that it is true that report under Sec‘rion 154 of Cr.P.C. was nofed by fhe po1ice on 16.4.2003, but side- by-sideyit is also true that information regarding accident was received by the police in the intervening night of 31.3.2003 d 1.4.2003 itself and thereafter the dead body was smt for postmortem examination by the police on the next day and thus, the delay in lodging the FIR has no relevance in the instant case and for this view, we are fortified with view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent decision rendered in the matter of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan & others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 603 wherein it has been held that “if is well ”ff/ed that delay in lodging HR cannorbe a ground to daubf the c/aimanf’s case. In cases of delay, the (burrs are required w examine the evidence with a c/aser scrutiny and in doing so Me contents of the HR should also be scrutinized more carehrlbt’. Further, if there was any doubt in the mind of the Claims Tribunal regarding the date of lodging of report, the Claims Tribunal should have aimmoned the police records, should have perused fhe statement of witnesses recorded under Section '161 of Cr.P.€. and should have wmmoned them to ascertain the fact regarding accident, vehicle d: driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. w & . As far as the finding of The Claims Tribunal fha‘r since There was no idenfificaiion of fhevehicle, the claimom's are no‘r enfifled for compznsafion is concerned, Pamsram Kashyap (AW-4), who was eyewitness of ‘the accident has sTo‘red in his smfemen‘r before the Claims Tribunal has given ‘rhe name of The driver as Ramprasad and also disclosed The number of frolley atiached with 1'he tractor. However, fhe Claims Tribunal dismissed theclaim petifion of the claimants in a casual manner without taking any pain to ascertain the veraci‘ry of truth, as provided under Sections 168 at 169 of the Act, 1988: Rule 22’s of me Mom vehicle Rules, 1994 and in Pam-11 of the mam? of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & another reported in 2010 (12) SCALE wherein the Hon‘ble Apex Court has held that “i..&c3‘ions»168 and 1690f like Act make if evidmf rhar #ia Tr/buna/ does nof mrion as a neuira/ umpire as in 'a civil suir, buf as an acfive explorer and seeker of frufh who is required fa hold an enquiry info ilie claim’ for defermim‘ng fhe fjwr compensarnfn’. 771e Tr/tuna/ diould therefore fake an acrive role m ascerrain flu frue and carrecfpasirion so #taf if can asxss ihe fjusf 9. It is'to be noted that the accident in question has taken place in the night at about 11.00 p.m. and after the accident, the driver of offending vehicle instead of taking the deceased to the hospital for treatment ran away from the spot leaving behind the deceased in injured condition to die for want of medical aid. Therefore we feel that conduct on the part of the driver of offending vehicle is also serious one. 10.In the light of aforesaid discussions, we partly allow this appeal, set aside the impugned award and remit thematter back to the Claims Tribunal for taking decision afresh in light. of the observations made in this order. Needless to mention that the Claims Tribunal shall provide opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, and amend the pleadings or to file documentsvor verify the documents already filed. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal concerned on 10’" August, _2§11. 11. The Registry is directed to transmit record of the Claims Tribunal concerned without further delay. No order as to costs. J - . \ ll ., .Sd,_ , i Sd/- _ i.M.Quddusif / G.M1NHAJUDDIN l Judge Judge l l r /\ ~ ‘w \ r 7 W