c IN THB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w MISCBLLANEOUS APPEAL No. ,3\3 of 2011 APPELLANT/: (Non-applicant No.2) RESPONDENTS/: (Applicants) ^-y^^ •^••^' ^ (Non-applicant No.3) ^^^^ Sub-Area Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bagdeva Project, Address: Bagdeva Project, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) - Versus - 1. Smt. Lalita Verma, W/o Late Ramdas Verma, Aged about 33 years. 2. Ashutosh @ Anshu Verma, S/o Late Ramdas Verma, Aged about 13 years. •^;- 3. Kum. Munmun Verma, D/o Late Ramdas Verma, Aged about 3 years. 4. Mewalal Verma, S/o Late Shyamlal Verma, Aged about 70 years. Respondents No.2 & 3 are minors through their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Lalita Verma, W/o Late Ramdas Verma, Agedabout 33 years, Presently residing at (all) Quarter No.EWS 86, Maharana Pratap Nagar, Korba, Tahsil & Disrict Korba (C.G.) 5. United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Zonal Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Zonal Office Main Road, Seetamani Korba, .- Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.) VALUE OF APPEALAT 11, 65000/- MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 //"'^\ 1 ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Divisioa Bench: Hon'ble Shri I.M. Quddusi & Hoa»bleShri G. Minhaiuddia. JJ. M. A. (Cl N0. 313 OP 2011 APPELLANT RESPONDENT8 Sub-Arca Maaager, South Eastenx Coal Fields Ltd 7s Siat. Lalita Verma and ofhers. APPBAL UNDBR SECTION 173 OP THB MOTOR VEHICLB8 ACT. 1988 Present: Dr. N.K-Shukla, Sr. Advocate wifh Mr. Oiaprakash Agrawal 85 Ms. Ritu Mishra, counsel for fhe appellsffit. Mr, Dashrafh Gupta, counsel for respondent no.5, ORALORDBR (15.07. 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi, J. This appeal has been fUed by fhe SECL/Owner of fhe offending vehicle agaiast the impugned award dated 22nd November, 2010 passed by the II Additional Motor Accident Clahiis Tribunal (FTC), Korba in Claim Case No. 110/2008 so far as it relates to fastenmg Uability to pay compensation upon the appellaat. The facts of fhe case, m nutsheU, are that on 11.05.2008 deceased Ramdas Verma was goiag to Apollo Hospital, BUaspur in aa Ambulaace bearmg Regn. No. C.G. 12/ 9929, owned by appeUaiit Compaay, for getting treatment of a person, who is the fatlier ofhis fiiend. On fhe way at about 1.00 a.m. ftie said Anibulsuice which was beiag driven by non-appUcaat no.l/Sukhvmder Siagh in a rash aad negUgent maaner met with accident at viUage Karra near Beltara, Tahsil Rataapur, as a resiilt of which, Ramdas Verma who was sittiag ia fhe back side of the said Ainbulance has died, At the tixne of accident, ^v. •Y /^•^ ^'^.•-s^ 1S fhe deceased was aged about 34 years. He was owner-cuni- driver of aci Auto and was earmng Rs.10,000/- per inonfh by runniag fhe Auto, The claimaats beiag legal heirs of fhe deceased had filed a petition under Section 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act before fhe Clauns Tribunal for the award of total coiapensation ofRs,40,00,000/- onvadbus heads. 3. Leamed Claims Tribunal haviag regard to the facts situation and evidence on record, held fhat fhe vehicle io. question was iavolved ia titie accident aad there was no breach of conditions of fhe iasuraace poUcy, drhnng Ucence, permit ete. Thus it has awarded a total conipensation of Rs,ll,65,000/- along with iaterest @ 6% per anniim. froxn thd date of appUcation. 4« We have heard leanied counsel for fhe pardes aad have also gone fhrough fhe records of fhe Tribunal. ^ft?'- 5. A perusal of the docuinents shows that fhe Driver Siikhviader Singh of fhe offendiag vehicle was issued a Driviiig Licence No. NDL/ 18436/KRB/6 by the Licensiag Authorily, Korba. Though fhe origlual Ucense was issued by the R.T.0,, Raipur, ia the year 1981 but accordiag to fhe iavestigator of the Insurance Compaay fhe drivmg Ucense was not issued by fhe RTO, Raipur. However, neifher any official froia fhe office of R.T.O, RaipuB alongwifh fhe records was produced by the Insuraace Coxapaiiy nor aay record was sununoned alongwith the ofiicial fix>m fhe office ofR.T.O. Korba by the Tribunal for clarification, r 6. The Origiaal Ucence was seized by fhe PolLce as appears fix>m. the seizure memo offhe PoUce dated 08.07.2008 iawhich it has been mentioned fhat fhe origiaal driviag Ucense of Sxikhviader Singh was valid upto 04.06.2009, but fh.e Tribunal has also faUed to summon fhe poUce records to ascertam fhe fact as to whefher or not fhe driviiig licence is available on record or the record of the Magistrate. It appears fhat fhe charge sheet u/ s 173 Cr.P.C. was ffled before fhe Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, as Charge Sheet No. 157 of 2008 dated 09,07.2008. ^%^N v<l 7. In Raj Kunwr -vs- Afay Kunwr cmd anather decided on 18tb October, 2010 aad reported ia IV (2010) Accident Ss Compcnsation. Ceuses 815 (SC) Honl3le fhe Apex Court held ftiat fhe claun petition should not be trcated as a civU suit aad it is fhe duty offhe Tribunal to conduct aa enquiry to ascertam fhe factual position, In para 11 of the said case, it has been further held that Sections 168 aad 169 of fhe Act make it evident fhat fhe Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as aii active explorcr aad seeker of trufh. who is required to <hold aa iaquiiy uito fhe claimL' for determmiag the <just compensation', The Tribunal should fherefore take aa active role to ascertam fhe tarue aad correct position so fhat it caa assess the 'just compensation'. 8. It has been provided m Rzile 226 of C.G, Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 fhat the Clauns Tribunal shall obtam whatever iaformation aad documents which jttay be found necessaiy froni fhe poUce, inedical and oftier aufhorities aad proceed to award the clami whefher fhe parties who were given notice, appear or not, on flie appoiated date. Further we cannot ignore flie provisions of sectionl68 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides that on receipt of aa application for coinpensation uiade u/s 166, fhe Clamis Tribunal shall after giviag fhe pardes (iacludia.g the iasurer) an opportunity of beiag heard, hold aa iaquiry nito fhe clami aad subject to the provisions of section 162 raay niake aa award determinio-g flie aaiount of compensation which appears to it to be just. However m fhe present case, tiie Tribunal has not conducted proper enquiry as laid down ia Rule 226 of fhe C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 and Section 168 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 9. Therefore, we are of fhe view fhat fhe miatter requires reconsideration at the end of fhe Tribunal. The Tribunal shaU suiamion fhe poUce records and conduct proper enquuy rcgardmg the veracity bf fhie driving Ucense. Hence, we aUow this appeal in part aad reinit the inatter back to fhie Tribuiial for '/ Rao ^ 10. 11. / decision afresh ia ftie Ught of fhe observations niade hereiaabove, Needless to mention fhat tibie parties shall be atlowed to amend fhe pleadiags, adduce fiirther evidence, file documents or get fhe documents verified etc., aad thereafber fhe Tribuxial shall take fhe decision afresh at fhe earliestThe parties shaU appear before the Tribunal on 17th August, 2011. The records of the Tribunal shaU be sent back wifhout aciy further delay, In the resiilt, the appeal is allowed in part, No order as to costs, Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ^ ^ r