JN THE HONBLE HjGH. CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH, AT BILASPURC.G. ^. fi i^ h^Hee-etewi Appeal No.^i \"\ 200) AppeiSants ... 1. Smt. Pushpa Devi aged 24 years/ Widow of late Shri Lokesh Kumar Sahu, ^^' 2. Pankaj Kumar aged 7 years 3. Kumari Akkanchha aged 4 years Father late Shri Lokesh Kumar Sahu 3 s/o LtfH.^^f ^{^rA.K^'s^h&t. 7^»w^</n^^ic^ \ p^^.fi^ o^f 4. Indalram Sahu aged 55 years son of Udhoram 8ahu. 5. Smt. Sushiia Sahu aged 48 years wife of Shri Indal ram Sahu AJI residents of village Ranitarai road, Post Tatenga Tahsil Dondilohara, DistrictDurg(C.G.) Versus •If.S-Of ^^ ss ;r^:i «(' o- Respondents 1. Jajlal Meshram ag^d 56 years, ^ Son of Miian Mesh^am, Resident of BIock No.92, PIot No.5/6, L.J.G.Quarter, Neharunagar East, Bhilai District Durg (C.G.) ^-^ ^ ^ ^ ^4^ ..-<.?' ^ ..•''.•^ /J ^'^•"i /' ' ^ ^y / ^•" >^.^ f^ 2. Chairman, Durg Rajnandgaon, Gramin Bank, Area office, Prakash Bhavan, Santara Badi, Station Roaod, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) '- 3. Branch Manager, The New india insurance Company Ltd., Parakh Bhavan, Station Road, Durg (C.G.) . 4. Branch Manager, ^ The Orientai Jnsurance Company Ltd., Kamptee Line, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) --' AppeaS ynder sectLon 173 of^he IViotor Vehicle Act AGAtNST AWARD t' F^ ^j:y s\ ^^am' HIGH COURT OP CHHATTI8GARH. BILA8PUR DB: HON*BLB I. M. QUDDU8I & HON'BLB G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ M.AICI No. 414/2009 APPBLLANTS: RBSPONDBNTS: Smt. Pushpa Devi aad ofhers Vs. Jafclal Meshram and ofhers MISC. APPBAL UNDBR 8BCTION 173 OF TUB MOTOR VBHICLE8 ACT. 1988 Appearance: Mr, Ajay Shrivastava, Counsel for fhe appeUaats, Mr. V,K. Deshinukh, Counsel for respondents 1 & 2. Mr. Deepak Gupta, coimsel for respondent no.3, Mrs, Chitona Shrivastava, coiinsel for respondent no.4. Per I.M. OUDDUSI. J. ORAL ORDBR (26.09.2011) This appeal has been filed by the Claimants agaiGist the impugned award dated 30,6.2007 passed by fhe IV Additional Motor Accident Cladms Tribxinal, Durg, Distdct Durg (C,G) ia Claim Case No, 146/2005 disxnissm.g fhe claiin of the appeUaats. Brief facts of the case as per the version of fhe clainoiaats are that on 14.01.2005, deceased Lokesh Kumar Sahu alongwith his fxiend Rumlal was goiag to Raoitarai by Motorcycle Hero Honda bearing Regn.no.C.G.08-E7550. After crossmg fhe Pulgaon naka, aa Ambassador Car bearing Regn, No, C.G.07/ 3053, which was beiag driven by non-appUcaat no, 1 in a rash aad negligent manner dashed fhe motorcycle, as a result of which, Lokesh Kuniar sustaiaed grievous iajuries aad he died ^^£~~ss^' r'/^ yj v€^r on fhe next day during fhe course of treatment ia Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai. At the tiine ofaccident, fhe deceased was aged about 26 years; he was driver-cuiii-Mechaxuc by profession and was earaiag Rs.3000/- per nionth, The claimaEits beiag dependents/legal representatives of fhe deceased have filcd clahn petition u/s 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act for the award ofa total conipensation ofRs.15,49,000/- on various heads. Learaed counsel for the appeUant submits that fhe Tribunal has not properly apprcciated fhe evidence aad wifhout conductmg proper enquuy and sixnunoniag fhe poUce rccards straight way dismissed the claun ofthe appellaats, We have heaixl learaed coiuisel for the parties aiad have also gone fhrough fhe records, The Tribunal has held fhat fhe accident had not taken place wifh the Ambassador Car bearing Regn. No. C.G.07-3053, but a bare perusal of the poUce record shows fhat fhe charge sheet was fiiled against ffae driver u/s 173 Cr.P.C, ia which aaxxxe of eye-witness has also been showa ia fhe list ofwitaesses aad Crimmal Case No.72/2005 (State Vs. Jaylal Meshram) was pendiag ia the Court of A, K, Lunia, the fhen J.M.P.C., in. connectfon wifh Crime No.41/2005 registered at PoUce ^atkm Pu^aon Distt, Durg for fhe offence punishable u/s 304-A, but what was the result of fhe trial is not known. Under the ctrcumistaiices, fhe Tribunal should have conducted proper enquiry to ascertam fhe trufh as provided ia sections 168 & 169 oftheC.G. Motor Vehieles Act, 1988 aad Rule 226 oftfae C.G.Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 aad then oaly it should have recorded fhe findiags. //r'~'^ "% 'w^ffi^.. ^ ^"^/s^^ 's y f ^'i"y ^ 6. It has been provided ia Rule 226 of C.G, Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 fhat fhe Claims Tribiinal shaU obtain whatever iafonnation aad docuinents which inay be found necessary froni fhe poUce, inedical and ofher aufhorities and proceed to award fhe claim whefher fhe parties who were given noticey appear or not, on fhe appointed date. Further we cannot ignore fhe provisions of section 168 of fhe Motor Vehictes Act, 1988 which provides fhat on receipt of aai appUcatioii for comipensation inade u/s 166, fhe CIamis Tribunal shaU after giviag fhe parties (in.cludiag the insiircr) aa opportunily of beiag h^ard, hold aa inquuy iato the claica and subj^^t to fhe provlsions of section 162 may inake an award detennmiag fhe amount of compensation which appears to it to be just 7. Further ia Kaf Kunwr -vs" Ajay Kunwr and cinalihier decided on 18& October, 2010 and reported in Jff ^010) Accident Ss Compensatfon Ccises 815 fSC^ Honl^le fhe Apex Court held fliat fhe claiin petition should not be treated as a civil suit and it is the duty of fhe Tribunal to conduct aa enquiry. In para 11 of the said case, it has been further held fhat Sections 168 axid 169 of tlie Act make it evident fhat the Tribruial does not function as a neutral iimpire as in a civU suit, but as aa active explorer aad seeker of trufh who is required to 'hold aa iiiquuy iato fhe claim' for deterniiiung fhe <just conipensation\ The Tribunal should fherefore take aii active role to aBcertein the tnie and correct position so fhat it caa assess fhe 'just coinpensation". 8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opioion fhat the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Tribunal. •^^^ Rao Hence, we aUow fhis appeal ia part, set aside fhe impugned award dated 30.06.2007 aad rcmit fhe matter back to the Tribunal for decision afresh ia fhe Ught of fhe obser^ations inade hereiaabove, The Tribunal as aa explorer of trufh shatl suniiaon fhe poUce records aad conduct enquiry for determiaiag just conipensation, if aiiy. Needless to inention fhat ffae parties shaM be allowed to amend fhe pleadiags, adduce further evidence, ffle documente or get fhe docuiaents verified etc,, aiid fhereafter fhe Tribuiial shaU toake tihie award afinesh at fhe earliest. The parties shall appear before fhe Tribunal on 16A NQvember, 2011. The records of fhe Tribunal shaU be sent back fbrthwifh. No order as to costs, Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge