V. :^. •Kws ^-msn^:: INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR rc.G.) MISC. APPEAL fCVNO. ll^ 2QF 2010 APPELLANT ^^..^^••-., ^^i""". ;,'•;', NON-APPLICANTS: 1. Tuman Lal Sahu, aged about 18 years, S/o Shri Ramkumar/ R/o Village Rasni, Police StatiQn Aarang, District Raipur(C.G.) VERSUS Shekh Mojnuddin, S/o Shekh Kamuaddin, aged aboyt 35 years, R/o In front of Bus Stand, Mahasamund, Djstrict Mahasamynd .(C.G.): .-;':':;-::'l,l^:'.:':i;.'Vl.l.;',1 Mohd. Tanveer, S/o Khudabaksh, R/o Hafijuddin, Telibandh, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) The New India Insurance Company Limited, Kachhari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Claimed before Tribunal : Rs. 5y00,p00/- Amount awarded by the learned Trjbunal : Claim dismjssed. Claimed in this Memo of Appeal : Rs. 5,00,OQO/- MISCELLANESOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT. 1988 (y- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR DMSION BENCH: HON'BLl MR. LM.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR.GULAM SVIINHAJUDDIN. JJ MAJcLNoJ 182/2010 Appellant Respondents Vs Tuman Lai Sahu ShekhMoinuddin & others Present: Mr. P.P. Sahu, Advocate for the appeilant. Mr. J.A. Lohani, Advocate for the respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate for the respondent No.3. QRDERJOrall (1stNovember,2011) i.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appellant has filed this appeal against the award dated 30.8.2010 passed by the learned 10th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.42/08. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant-injured fiied a claim appiication under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988') before the Clalms Tribunal stating therein that on 25.8.2007 at about 8.30 p.m. when he was standing near Santosh Betel Shop along with his friends, at that time tyre of the Jeep bearing registration number CG04-Z-2349, v^hich was coming from opposite direction and being driven in rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1, detached from it and hit on left leg of the claimant as a result of which he sustained a fracture injury in his left leg. He was admitted In Dr. Sandeep Sahu's Nursing Home, Raipur for treatment where a rod was inserted in his teg. He was discharged from the said hospital on 29.8.2007. The injured-claimant has claimed compensation on the ground that in the said accident he has suffered loss of earning capacity. 4. The Claims Tribunal vide impugned order dismissed the ciaim appiication of the appellant herein interalia on the ground thatthe claim application was filed by a minor and as such the same is not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-lnsurance Company has urged that scriber of the first information report was father of the ciaimant who did not appear in the witness box. There was report in respect of Vehicie No.CG06-ZA-2563 and in which name ofthe driver was mentioned as 'Moin Khan', however, later on, it was reveaied that vehicle number is CG04-ZA-2349 and name of the driver is 'Sheikh Moinuddin'. Thus, there was no scope to allow the claim petltion. r 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. VVe have also perused ihe records of the Claims Tribunal. 7. The Hon'bie Supreme Court also in Para-11 of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & another reported in 2010 (12) SCALE 265 has held that "...Tribunalshouldnot be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered m regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular the extent of permanent disabi/ity. Sec^ons 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tnbunal cfoes not function as a neutral umpire as in a civif suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of iruth who is requir^i to shold an enquiry Into the claim3 for determining the 'just compensation'. The Tribunal shoufd therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct posltion so that it can assess the {just compensaiion'\ 8. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988') provides that on receipt of application for compensation, the Ciaims Tribunal shafi hoid an inquiry into the claim. Section 169 of the Act, 1988 prescribes procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunal and says that in holding any inquiry under Section 168, the Ciaims Tribuna! may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. The Claims Tribunal shail have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing attendance of the witnesses and of compeiiing the discovery and production of documents and materiai objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed and the Claims Tribunal shalt be deemed to be a Civil Court for ali the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Cr.P.C. Besides this, in Rule 226 of the Motor Vehicle ^Rules, 1994 also it has been provided that the Claims Tribunal shali conduct enquiry to ascertain the fact. 9. In the case in hand, though in the daim petition age of the claimant was shown as 18 years but even if the Claims Tribunal was of the view that the claimant is minor, it could have appointed father of ciaimant, who was very well alive, as guardian of the claimant and the claim petition should have been treated through the guardian and it should not have been dismissed on this technicai fault. Further, a perusal of final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C, of the concemed police station, which was submitted Jn the court of JMFC, Raipur, shows that during investigation, correct registration number of the jeep was traced by the police and the driver was charge sheeted after completion of investigation for the offence punishable under Sections 279,337 & 338 of IPC. 10.1n these circumstances, the Claims Tribunal should not have treated the claim application as if the same was a dvil suit and the Claims Tribunal should have perused the poiice record while conducting enquiry to ascertain the truth, but ^.-/^^ r si' ' K 1. .,. 't /' the same has not been done in the instant case. Therefore, we feei that the matter requires reconsideration atthe end ofthe Claims TribunaS. 11 Jn the resuit, the appeal is partly allowed, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Ctaims Tribunal for decision afresh, The Claims Tribunal shali decide the claim application afresh after providing opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, or to call/recaii the witnesses, amend the pleadings or to fiie documents or verify the documents already filed and after foilowing the provisions of Sections 168 & 169 of the Act, 1988 and Rules 226 ofthe Motor Vehicles Rules. 12.Thepartiesare directed to appear before the Claims Tribunai concerned on 13 December, 2011. The Registry is directed to transmit record of the Claims Tribunai concemed without further delay. No order as to costs. »A . Roshan/- Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge