IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Misc.Appeal No. T^ 7200^ Appellants ^(Claimants) ^ t<<rs</ ^••y 3),, my ...•••y' ^- ^^ ,y ' <^' i>v Respondents 0?v?s?on Bench 1) Smt.Dularibai, W/o Late Shri Shyamlal, r Aged about 58 years. Dushyant lal, S/o Late Shri Shyamlal, Aged about 40 years. Hemchand, S/o Late Shri Shyamlal, / Aged about 35 years. (All R/o Vilalge Punda, Tahsil Dhamdha, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Presently residing at Quarter No.3 H, Street No.16, Sector 6, Bhilai, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.)) Versus 1) , jVtanihar, S/o Shri Dhanau Garhriya, ^^Aged about 30 years, R/oVillage & Post { Nawagaon, PS - Pulgaon, Tahsil Dhamdha, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 2) , ^ /Khemlal Patel, S/o A Patel, R/o Village Daniya (Nankatthi), Tahsil Dhamdha, Distt. Durg (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. No. 968 of 2006 Appellants Smt. Dularibai & others Versus Respondents Manihar & another APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173J3F THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shri P. R. Patankar, Advocate for the appellants. Shri S. P. Sahu, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. None for the respondent No. 2. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 1 1th day of August, 2011 ) Per I. M, Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants against the impugned award dated 23.3.2006, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg in Claim Case No. 45/2005, dismissing the claim petition. 2. The, brief facts, in nutshell, are that the appellants/claimants had filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 13,78,OOO/- under various heads on the ground that Shyam Lal died on 6.1.2002 as he received grievous injuries in a motor accident, wherein the motorcycle bearing registration No. M.P. 24-YA/7053 was involved in causing the accident. 3. Learned Claims Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record dismissed the claim petition by the impugned award. ffsKSk IN^ 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers available on record and found that the deceased had got following ante mortem injuries - abrasion on both knee, abrasion on left hand, abrasion on right shoulder, abrasion on back oblique, abrasion on right parietal region, abrasion on left parietal region, pinna left at helix & posterior, abrasion partially healed left side parietal region, extended (frontal part and lateral part of eye orbital) contusion and bluish right temporal region; and the cause of death was coma due to head injury and fracture of skull bone. 5. The Tribunal has given a finding that the above injuries were not received by the deceased due to the motor accident but might have been caused by falling down on earth, which is improbable. Further, the vehicle was also seized from the place of accident by the police. The F.I.R. was lodged by the younger son of the deceased and during the investigation the police was of definite view about the involvement of the accident by the use of the motorcycle. That fact has also not been taken care of by the learned claims Tribunal. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kunaar Vs, Ajay Kuniar & another { 2010 (12) SCALE} in para 11 has held that "The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does notfunction as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to 'hold an enquiry into the claim'for determining the (just compensation\ 7. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal should not have treated the claim petition as a civil suit as it is the duty of the Tribunal to conduct an enquiry as provided in Section 168 of the ^ ^ Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of the M.P./C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. 8. Therefore, in our opinion the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we allow this appeal in part, set-aside the impugned award dated 23rd March, 2006 and remit the matter back to the Tribunal to consider and decide afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and opportunity to lead evidence, amend pleadings, file documents or get the documents verified etc. Thereafter the decision afresh shall be taken without being influenced by the findings given earlier. 9. The parties shall appear on 21st September, 2011 before the Tribunal. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. No order as to costs. 11. The Registry is directed to send back the papers, requisitioned from the Tribunal, forthwith. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Thakur