\/-\^j<v\/"S^j<nAy\A:A^ Fj IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (C)Np, '2-2"€ QF 2^3^ •2^o~t APPELLANT (Insurer) Vs RESPONDENTS; (Claimant) ^ ^ ^ .^s^ ...- ^^' '^ ^^•^y ^"..y 9- (Owner of vehicle) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Itwari Bazar, Raigarh through Divisinol Manager Oriental Insurance co. Division office Geetanjali Bhawan main road Korba(C.G). 1./-'/Netranand Behra S/o Shri Dubraj Behra, aged about 46 years. 2.,.,Mohragi W/o Shri Netranand Behra, aged about 44 years. 3.,©ulapa W/o Late Shri ^\Omprakash, aged about 22 years 4. ,Minor Vikash S/o Late Shri Omprakash, aged about 3 years. 5. Minor Vivek S/o Late Shri /' Omprakash (Respondents No.4 & 5 through its Natural Guardian Mother), ( All are R/o Village - Khamariya, Tehsil Gharghoda, Dist. Raigarh -(9-G-) 6.^1ata Road Courier, thorugh its Manager, Mata Road Carrier, R/o Behind Jain Petrpl Pump, Tatibandh, lipur, Dist. Raipur (Driver of vehicle) 7. Kameshwar Ram S/o Shri Mukhlal, aged about 30 years, Village & Post - Tillore, Dist. Palamu, (Zharkhand) c^r'" APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 Of THE MOTOR VEHCILES ACT, 1988 AGAINST THE AWARD/ORDER DATED 30.03.2007 PASSED IN CLAIM CASE N0.43/2006 BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, RAIGARH (BENCH PRESJDED OVER BY THE PRESIDINGOFFIC E R S HRI ARVIND SHRIVASTAVA) ,^/"' .<.^. ^ ^^.^ ^ ^^fh %%S6^^ '^^^ / ^ ''^.%^ ^C^< HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. (Q No. 226 of 2008 Appellant • The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Respondents Netranand Behra & others MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8& Hon'ble Shri G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 28th day ofJuly, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi J. The instant appeal, filed by the appellant/Insurance Company arises from the award dated 303.2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh in Claim Case No. 43/2006, awarding a sum of Rs. 5,61,000/- along with interest at the rate of6% p.a. The ground of challenge in this appeal is so far as the Tribunal has fastened the liability upon the appellant/Insurance Company to pay the compensation; however, the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licnece on the date of accident. The facts, in brief, are that on 25.4.2005 deceased Om Prakash and Dileshwer Patel were returning to their village Khamaria on Freedom Motorcycle, bearing registration No. C.G. 13/D-4292, owned by the deceased. At the time of the accident the motorcycle was being driven by the deceased. On the way, at about 9.45 p.m. near Hunkara Depot Power Plant, the vehicle - Dumper, bearing registration No. C.G. 04-G/8215, which was being driven by the non-applicant" No.2 in a rash and negligent manner, directly hit the motorcycle. As a result of the accident ^' -^ :&A ^ ^ 11 7. 8. •^ ^ Om Prakash died on the spot and Dileshwer Patel received grievous mjunes. The legal heirs/claimant of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 24,68,OOO/- under various heads. Learned Claims Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record awarded a sum of Rs. 5,61,000/- as compensation along with simple interest @ 6% per annum. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the lower Court's record. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised a contention that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licnece on the date of the accident. It was a dumper but the driving licence was for LMV only. However, on the basis of the certificate filed in this behalf this fact was tried to be proved by the appellant that the driver of the dumper was not having a valid and effective driving licence. The Tribunal did not accept the same on the ground that no authorized person from the R.T.O. has been examined in this behalf and thus passed the impugned award fafetening the liability upon the insurance company. Having regard to the facts situation and the findings recorded by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the TribunaF should have conducted proper enquiry to ascertain the veracity of the truth as to whether the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licnece or not. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & another {2010 (12) SCALE} in para 1 1 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 ofthe Act make it evident that the Tribunal does notfunction as a T Si. ^^\ "1":\\ ^^•^> ^ ;^^" f" *) 'k 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\ 10. Therefore, in view of what has been observed by this Court hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Tribunal after conducting an enquiry as provided under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of the ^ M.P./C.G. MotorVehiclesRules, 1994. 11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we allow this appeal in part, set-aside the impugned award dated 30.3.2007 and remit back the matter to the Tribunal for decision afresh in view of the observations made hereinabove. No order as to costs. 12. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce further evidence again in support of their pleadings and may file further documents and get the documents verified etc. 13. The lower Courts record shall be sent back forthwith. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Thakur