Ojvision Bencfc IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.} M.A. (C) No.. 7 ^•2. 72011 iiPPELLANTS CLAIMENTS ^ ^t. SmtSukaldei afi^-o^eFS-w/o LateSajoram aged about 50 year, Prem kumar pawar .s/0 late sajoram pawar pawar aged about 20years (minor).Awtan kumar s/o latesajoram aged about 1 6 Years .(minor). Dhanraj pawar s/o late sajoram pawar aged about 12 years All R/0 Village Belgal ,thana pakhanjur Distt U.P.Kanker (C.G.) Appellant no.3 & 4 (minor)Through, natural guardian mother smt. Sukaldie w/o late sajoram pawar RESPONDENTS: 1. ^" VERSUS (VEHICLE OWNER)- National Auto mobiles Shihawa road Dhamtari Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) (INSURER)- The United india insurance co. Lt.d. through Divisional Manager Krishana complex first Faltor kachehari chouk Raipur Distt. Raipur Miscellaneous Appeal underSectiorfl73 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 H1GH CGURT OF CHHATTISGAKK AT BILASPUR M.A.i'a N0.742 GF 2011 APPELLANTS/ (Clsdm^sitsl RESPONDENTS Sinl. Sukaldei aiid oiliera Versiis National aaother. Autoinobiles aiici L. ^ _. APPBAL UHDER SECTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VBHICLBS ACT, 1988 sDivisioa Beaeh: Hoa'ble S'hxi I.M. Guddusi & Hoa'bleShriG.niiahainddia^JJ.I Preseiit : Shri Vijay KuiB.ar Sahu, counsel on belialf of Shri A,L. Siagroul, counsel for tlie appeUaats, Noue for respondent No, 1 fhough served. Shri Saujay S, Agrawal, counsel forTespondeut No.2, ORALORDBR .- oa 04^ day ofHowaiber, 2011] Per I.M. Oiiddusi, J. Heard 011 I,A, No.Ol, whicli is aii appllcation tbr condoiiatioAi of delay lii filiag tlie appeal. 2» Oa due coiisMeration of the grouads iiieiitk?ned la tlie application, we ai'e satisfied fh.at fhe appellarits have succeeded iii v; explamia.g the cause of delay ia filmg fhe appeal, Therefi)ie, the app-licatioii (IA No<01) !s allowed aad flie delay causecl iii fiUiig tbie appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Wifli tlie cojiseat ofleai'Tied counsel appeaiirig for flie paities, fhe inatter is heaixl finally at tlie stage of adiiiission. 4, This appeal has been filed by the appeHaiite/clalmaiits , agauist the impugiied award dated 28-01-2010 passed iii Clami Case No. 117/2007 by tlie Additional Motof Accident Claims Tribiinal, (F.T.C.), Bliaiiupratappur, Norfli Bastai', Dlstrict Kaiiker (for sliort 'flie Claims Trlbmial5), dlsmissiiig llie cialm on flie ground tliat proper person was, not impleadecl as pai'ty to tiie clalm petition. 5. Brieffacts offlie case as projecfed by fhe clalmajQ.te, are tliat tlie appellaiits/clamiants were iiiotlier aiid brotliers offlie deeeased ,<*<<.•- ^ RaiiLktuiiar-. Respoiicleiits/non-appUcauts No. 1 & 2 were owner and iiisurer of the trajcior Mesi Fargyusan 1035 DJ., Engine No, 5337-15833. On 05-07-2006 at aboiit 4-30, while Ramkumai- was doiiig agricultare work by driviag the Tractor, all of a sudden, tiie wheel of tlie said tx'actor was entaiigled ifi fb.e mud of tlie lielcl aiid when he tiied to take it out, tlie said tractor was over turned, as a result of which Ram.kuiu.ar was crashed as he c'ame uiider fh-e ti'actor aiid tliereby died on the spot. At flie tmie of accideat, deceased RamkujuLai' was a baclielor and his age was 22 years. He was earniD.g Rs. 3000/- per inontli, as tTactor driver. 6. The appella&its/ciamiafiits beiag legal heii-s aiid legal representatives of tlie deceased had filed a claim petition under Sectioii 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for shoil 'the Act') claimiiig a total amount of coiiipensation of Rs,4/51,000/- agakist fhe respoxiderits/rioii-appllcante joiatly arid seversJly^ for die death ofRaaikumai (deceased). 7. Leanied Claiias Tribunal on a close scratmy of ffae evidence lecl, Biaterial placed aad subiiiissions niade by fhe parties, disixiissed Uie petltlon on tlie ground th.at fhe claimaiits liave not mipleaded proper person as paity to tlie claloi petltion/ 8. Froin perusal oftlie recbrds oftiie Clauns Tribunal, it is cleai th.at the clami petition lias been disiiaissed on the grouad of 11011- joinder of necessaiy pai~ty. It is apparent fliat tiie Claims Tribuaal has not d^chai-ged th.e duty enjoiiied upon it uiider Sectlons 168 aiid 169 ofthe Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of tlie C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, As per fliese provisions, tlie Claiuis Tribziiial was eluty bouncl to conduct a proper eiiqLiiiy for the purpose of ascertaio.iiig tlie tiutli for deteriii.iiitiig jiist coiiipensation to be awaixlecl to flie claimaiits but tlie ssuuie has not been done. It was tlie duty of the Clalms Tribunal to provide opportuiiity to the clamjiaiits to miplead necessaiy party, if aiiy. We have also seen tiliat flie Clalni^ Tribuiial has not corisldered tlie defiiiltioii of the owaer given iu Sectioii 2 (30) oftheAct. 9. Hoii^ble tlie Supreme Court iii tlie Biatter of ^q^fetimcir •?s» Aj^ Kufwar Ss anotherf reported ia 2010 (12| SCALE 2SS, has held io. para 11 as under: 3 f; "................................Sections 168 and 169 of tlie Act iiiake it evident that flie Tribunal does not fanctlon as a neuti'al iimpire as ia a civU suit, biit as aa active exploi'er aad seeker of ti'ufh who is required to Tiolcl an enquiry into the clami' for deteriiiio.iiig tlie 'just coiiipeiisation". The Tiibuual should therefore take an actlve role to ascertaui fhe tx'ue and correct position so fhat it caii assess the j'ust coiiipensatlon.*.... ,.w 10. In view of the above, we are of the opiaien fliat fhe laatter reqjiires reconsideration at fhe eud of flie Tribunal. TIierefore, we allow fhis appeal ia part, set asicle the impugned award aad remit back flie matter to fhe Claims Tribunal for decisiou afrcsh Iii view of the above obseiv-ations. 11. Needless to iiiention that flie pm'ties shall be provided opportunity to aoiend the pleadiags, adduce fuither evidence, file documents or get the documeuts veri&ed add to miplead necessaiy party etc,, 011 tiie basls ofthe pleaditigs already 011 record. 12. The pai'ties shall appear before th-e Clalnis Tribuaal on 14-12- 2011. 13. No order as to costs. Kvr Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge