^l- BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARHAT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (C) No. ^P<? /2010 APPELLANTS / CLAIMANTS y^s^ ••^"rt^\\ ^"•.^•^^ ^' ':-:^ "" ..^ •^^^ ^^.:^- ."j;^ •|'j'^ Q^Msm^^'^- 1. Mansharam Rai, ^^a",,-,-; S/o Late Manbodhi Rai, Aged about 60 years, Caste Satnami 2. Smt. Devkumari, W/o Lafe Ramesh kumar Rai, Aged about 26 years, 3. Sanjay Rai, S/o Late Ramesh Kumar Rai, Aged about 10 years, Represented by Guardian Grand Father Mansharam Rai/S/o Late Manbodhi Rai, 4. Praveen Kumar Rai, S/o Late Ramesh Kumar Rai, Aged about 8 years, Represented by Guardian Grand Father Mansharam Rai, S/o Late Manbodhi Rai, 5. Pintu Rai, S/o Late Ramesh Kumar Rai, Aged abut 6 years/ Represented by Guardian Grand father, Mansha Ram Rai,S/o Late Manbodhi Rai, 6. Akash Rai, S/o Late Ramesh Kumar Rai, Aged about 4 years, Represented by Guardian MotherSmt. Devkumari/ 7. Vikas/S/o Late Ramesh Kumar Rai, Aged about 2-1/2 years, Represented by Guardian Mother Smt. Devkumari, All are R/o Vitlage Bhathiya, Post- Bhaisa, Thana - Kharora, District- Raipur (C.G.) '•m 8 RESPONDENTS: VERSUS 1. Itwari Dhritlahre, S/o Nathani Dhitlahre, Aged about 50 i^ R/o Village Dumha (Sundari), Thana Palari/District - Raipur (C.G.) (Driver ofJeep No. C.G. 04- ZA/2205) 2. Yupram Sahu, S/o Late Suraj Prasad, Aged about 28 years, R/o Village Bhathiya, Post - Bhajsa, Thana Kharora, District Raipur ( C.G.) (Owner and Driver of Super Hero Honda Splendor . No.C.G. 04- CR/6039) The New India Insurance Company Limited through Divisional Manager, Branch No. 451801, Civil line Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer of Super Hero Honda Splendor No. C.G. 04- CR/6039 Insurance Owner) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 FOR COMPENSATION AMOUNT ^: /•'.^•^ '% .^' ^:"~ <'~'';'. ''^ S itaSSSk j ^. HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: Hon*ble I. M. QUDDU8I & Hon*ble G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ M.A(C| No. 689/2010 APPBLLANTS: RESPONDENT8: Mansharani Rai aad ottiers Vs. Itwan Dhritlahre and ofhers MISC. APPBAL UNDER SBCTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VBHICLB8 ACT. 1988 Appearanice: Mr, Satyendra Sahu counsel for fhe appellants. Mr. H, B, Agrawal, Sr, Advocate with Mrs. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for respondent no.3. ^ Per I.M. QUDDUSI. J. ORAL ORDBR (05.08.2011) 1. This appeal has been filed by the Claimaats agamst fhe impugned award dated 31.03.2010 passed by the VII Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G) m Clamx Case No.57/2008 dismissmg fhe claim of fhe appellaats. 2. Brief facts of fhe case as per fhe version of fhe claioiaiits are that on 05.10.2007 at about 8.30 p.m., in the night deceased Ramesh Kumar Rai was traveliag ia between viUage Bhatiya aad village Latiya by Motorcycle beariag Regn.no.C.G.04- CR/6039 along-wifh Yupram Sahu aad Yashwaat Rai. He was sitting as piUion nder. On the way near village Saadi ia front of Central Banlc, fhe front tire of motorcycle was burst, as a result ofwhich, Ramesh Kumar fell down on fhe middle offhe road, At fhat time, one Jeep bearing registration No. C.G.04/ZA-2205 goiag towards Raipur fi?om Baloda Bazar dashed Ramesh Kumar. It is aUeged that that respondent ..^:s: ^^:^ N< no.l was driviag fhe Jeep in rash aad negUgent manxier and he could not control fhe vehicle and dashed Rainesh Kiimar. Consequentiy he sustaiaed head injury aad died, The report was lodged ia the potlce station Palad stating fhat while driving the motorcycle, an unkaown Jeep hit fhe deceased aad nin away towards Raipur. Respondent no,2 Yupram Sahu was owner aiid driver of vehicle Hero Honda bearmg Regn.No.C.G.04-CR/6039 and respondent no.3 is iasurer of Hero Honda inotorcycle, At fhe time ofaccident, fhe deceased was aged about 28 years aad was earaiag Rs. 130/- per day by workmg as Head Mason, The appellaats beiag dependents/legal rcpresentatives have filed claun petition u/s 163-A of fhe Motor Vehicles Act for fhe award of total compeusation of Rs. 11,77,000/ - on vanous heads. The leamed Claims Tribunal has held fhat fhe Jeep was not iavolved in fhe accident aad denied ftie version of the clamian.ts fhat ftie deceased died ni the said accident when fhe said Jeep was driven by respondent no.l ia a rash aad negUgent ixianner, 4. We have heard learaed counsel for fhe parties at length aad have also gone fhrough fhe records. In the FIR ffled on 05.10.2007, it has been stated that an iinknown Jeep hit the motorcycle and raa away towards Raipiir. Later on, during fhe coiirse of iavestigation, fhe niiniber of offendiag Jeep was toraced out by the PoUce, In fhe j5nal report filed u/s 173 Cr,P.C, it has been xaentioned fhat one Jeep beariag Regn.No.C,G, 04-ZA/2205 which was beiag driven ia a lash aad negligent uiaaner dashed ftie niotorcycle aad raii away. The clamiaats have also pleaded ia fhe claun petition fhat fhe deceased died ia the accident caused by the said Jeep. It appears that fhe Tribunal has not properly appreciated the pleadings aad the evidence adduced by the witaesses to fiad out fhe Trufh. 6. It has been provided ia Rule 226 of C,G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 fhat fhe Claims Tribunal shatl obtaia whatever mformation and documents which may be found necessaiy froin fhe police, niedical aad ofher aufhorities aad proceed to award tiie clami whefher the parties who were given notice, appear or not, on the appomted date. Further we caanot ignore fhe provisions of sectionl68 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides fhat on receipt of aa appUcation for coinpensation niade u/s 166, fhe Claiins Tribunal shatl afler giving the parties (iacluduig fhe iasurer) aa opportunity of bemg heard, hold aa inqmiy into fhe claiai aad subject to the provisions of section 162 raay inake aD. award determining fhe amount of coinpensation which appears to it to be just However ia ftie present case, fh.e Tribunal has not conducted proper enquuy as laid down io^ Rule 226 of fhe C.G, Mator Vehicles Riiles, 1994 and Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. f7. Purther ia Rc^ Kunwr -vs- AJay Kunwr cmd emather decided on 18th October, 2010 and rcported in JV (2010) Accident & Cofripenseition Cases 815 (8C) HonTsle the Apex Court held tih.at fhe clami petition should not be treated as a civil suit aad it is the duly of fhe Tribiuial to conduct aa enquiry. In para 11 of fhe said case, it has been further held fhat Sections 168 aad 169 of the Act make it evident fhat fhe Tnbunal does not function as a neutral uiapire as ia a civU suit, but as aa active explorer aad seeker of torufh who is required to <hold ao. iaqiury iato fhe claun> for determiaiag fhe 'just compensation', The Tribunal shoiild thereforc take aa active role to ascertaia fhe true ao.d correct position so fhat it caa assess fhe 'just compensation'. 8. Therefore, fhe niatter requires reconsideration at fhe end of fhe Tribunal. Hence, we allow this appeal ia part, set aside fhe impugned award dated 31,03.2010 aad remit the matter FT k back to the Tribunal for decision afrcsh ia fhe Ught of the observations inade hereinabove. 9. Needless to inention fhat fhe pardes shaU be atlowed to amend the pleadiags, adduce further evidence, file fhe docixments or get fhe documents verified etc, aad thereafter fhe decision shall be taken afresh. The records of fhe Tribunal shall be sent back wifhout further delay. The parties shaU appear before the Tribunal on 14th of Septeiaber, 2011, 10. In fhe result, fhe appeal is aUowed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao tt