•^- ^-^:; •^t-!^ ^!<! IN THE HON'BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ APPELLANT T^ M-A.(C) .-^7^,... 3ivisionBanGB ^/THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE LIMITED COMPANY, RAIPUR, DISTRICT - RAIPUR C.G. Vrs. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS :- ^l. V; SAJNI BAI WIDOW OF KALYAN, AGE ABOUT 23 YRS., JAIPRAKASH S/0 KALYAN, AGE ABOUT l^ YRS., NO.-2 MINOR, GUARDIAN MOTHER SAJNI BAI WIDOW KALYAN, BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JOGIPUR, TAH. BEMETARA, DISTRICT - DURG C.G. RESPONDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS :- ^' ^ -^.' . ^ '^y~ ^^ ^- ^^^•••" 3. SHAILENDRA KUMAR @ SHAILENDRA SINGH S/0 RAMBABU SINGH, AGE ABOUT 38 YRS., DRIVER, RESIDENT OF TELDHANINAKA, RAIPUR THANAGANJ, DISTRICT - RAIPUR C.G. ^ 4. SARDAR AMARSINGH THROUGH - GIL / GARAGE, J.E. ROAD, CHHOKARA NALA, RAIPUR C.G. 5. RAMDAS S/0 JAGDISH SATNAMI AGE ABOUT 40 YRS., 6. SUKHMAT BAI WIDOW OF MANJRU / SATNAMI, AGE ABOUT 70 YRS. /"" BOTH FARMER, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BILADI, THANA & TAH. - NEORA, DISTRICT - RAIPUR C.G. APPEAL UNDER SECTION173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 ,^^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUH B£.A. (Ct N0. 789 GF 2008 CLAIMANTS Oriental Insui'aiice Compaiiy Limited Ver^ias Sajiri Bai aiid ollie.rs. APPEAL UNBER SECTION 173 OF MGTGR VEHICLES ACT, Divisiosi BenchsHon'bIe Shri £.M. Ouddusi & H©n)bleShri G. Mi^haluddte, JJ. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for the appenant. Sl~ui Saiijay S. Agrawal, counsel for the respondents. OHAL ORDER (P^ed on 14th day ofJime; 2011) Per I.M. Ouddusi, J. Heai'-d. 2. This appeal has been filed agaliist tlie uB.pugned awai'd dated 21-04-2008 passed by Additional Motor Accident. Clalms Tribunal, Bemetai^a, Distt. Dm-g (for shor-t tlie Tribuiial) lii Claim Case 22/2007 by the Ins-Lwaiice Compaiiy/appellaiit whereby aiid whereunder aii aniomit of Rs.5,29,900/- has been awai'-decl m favom' of tlie claimaiits. 3. Brief facts of flie case ai'e that on 17-11-2006 deceased Kalyaii Satiiaini was gomg from Raipur to Sai'aipali by driving Truck (407) beai'uig registiation Nd:C.G.10-ZB/2325. On tlie way at about 1 p.m., before Baibaspur one Truck beai'uig registration No. C.G.04/4751 which was belng driven by r-espondent no.3 herein, m a rash aiid negligent maiiiier dashed tlie Truck :r ^ ^^^ 1^, ^y "^^^,^- ^ ^ No.C.G. 10-ZB/2325, as a result of wllich Kalyaii died. A report has been filed in flie Pollce Station, Basna aiid registered a case agaiiist fhe diiver of the offending vehicle. 4. The claimants Le., urifortuuate widow aiid a niiiior son of fl-ie deceased being tiie dependents/legal representatlves have filed a petition under Section 166 of tiie Motor Veliicles Act (for short <the Act^j before tlie Tribunal claiuung total ai'nount of compensation of Rs.34,63,000/-. 5. The learned Tribuiial on a close scrutmy of evidence led, material placed and submissions made by tlie paities, has awarded a sum of Rs.5,29,900/- along wiA interest @ 6% per aiiiiuiii from tiie date of application. 6. Leai'ned comisel for the appellant wo-ald submit that. no eye witiiess was exaaimed aiid m tiie absence of eye wifciiess awai'd of compensation was not proper. 7. We have heai'd leai'ned couiisel for tiie pai'ties aiid perused tiie record of flie Tribunal aiid found that tiie maker of tlie F.LR was aii mjured person nainely Deenaiiatli Saliu, who was an eye witoess. Besides tiiis, the police has filed final report under- Sectlon 173 of Cr.P.C. iii which names of witoess have been shown. However, the Tribunal has igiiored tiie witoesses thou^.1 Sections 168 and 169 of the Act casts a duty upon Uie Clainis Tribmial to conduct aii enquuy for determmation of facts for tiie pm'pose of awai'ding compensation. Rule 226 ofti.ie C.G. Motor Velilcles Rules 1994 also inaposes duty upon the Clalms Tribunal to conduct a proper enquiiy. Furtlier the Tribunal should not ti-eat the claim petition as civil suit and as aa explorer of tratli, it is required to couduct an euquhy. 8. It has been provided iii Rule 226 of C.G. Motor Vehicles Rulcs, 1994 tliat the Clalius Tribunal shall obtain r '^ •^% ^ •^:^/ .,^^<" whatever iiiformation aiid docuiiients which may be found necessaiy from flie police, medical aiid other authorities aiid proceed to awai'd ti'ie claim whetiier tiie pai'tles who were given notice, appeai- or not, on the appouited date. Fm'tlier we camiot ignore tlie provisioiis of sectionl68 of the Motor Velilcles Act, 1988 which provldes tiiat on receipt of aii application for compensation made u/s 166, the Clainis Tiibunal shall after giviiig tlie parties (iiicludmg the insui'er) aii opportmiity of being heai'd, hold aii mquu'y iiito ttie claim mid subject to tlie provislons of section 162 may niake an award detei'miaing ttie arnouiit of compensation wliich appeai-s to it to be Just. 9. FurUier ixi Rcy Kuvnar -vs- AfaS/ Kuvnar wad arwther decided 011 18th Oclober, 2010 axid reporLed ui W (2010) Accident & Compensation Ccwes 81 S (SC), Hon'ble tl'ie Apex Court laid down vide Pai'a-11 tiiat Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evideut tliat the Tribunal does not fmiction as a neutral umpM'e as in a civil suit, but as ajii actlve explorer aad seeker of trufli who 1s required to Tiold aa inquiiy iiito the claim? for determuiiiig the ^ust coinpensation'. The Tribuiial should therefore take aa active role to ascertaiii the ti'ue aad con-ect position so tiiat it caii assess the 'just compensation'. / T 10. Therefore, we ai'e of the view tliat flie Tribunal has not conducted proper enquiry as laid down iii Rule 226 of tl-ie C.G. Motor Vel-ucles Rules, 1994 aiid Section 168 of the Motor- Veliicles Act, 1988 and m vlew of tlie decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar's case (supra). 11. In view of the above facts aiid cii'cumstances of tlie case, we are of tlie opuiion that tlie matter requii'es reconsideration at the end of the Tribmial. Therefore, we ^^: ^^ •^^ " 4 allow thls appeal In pai~t; set aside tlie impugaed award dated 21.04.2008 ai-id reniit the matter back to fl-ie Tribunal for decision afi-esh. 12. Needless to mention that the pailies shall be ailowed to aiiiend tlie pleadiiigs, adduce furtlier evldence, file documents or get tlie documents ver-Uied etc., aiid flie TribuAial shall summon ti.ie police record as well as tiie eye witnesses to ascertaiii the ti-utli aiid tliereafter a decision shall be takeu afresh as early as posslble. Siace permissioii u/s 170 ofthe Act was gran-ted, it will be open for flie appellaiit to r-alse question of quantiini before tlie Tribuxial. Parties shaU appeai' before tiie Tribunal on 25.07.2011. In case of absence of aiiy pai'ty, tiie Tribmial shaU issue notice for appeai'aiice. The records of tiie Tribunal shall be sent forthwith. No order as to costs, 13. The amomit wl-iich has ah-eacly been deposited by the appellant shall reiiiam m deposit till a decision is takeu afresli. ?- Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge -^/ T 5^7 •^. ?-' Kvr