C^iL BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CC.G.) M.A. fC) NO./ (T^^/2009 APPELLANT 40WNER) i®3^' i^ ..^:s^ ^.^•••" .6.-- RESPONDENTS ^. ^ 3. 4,... ^' .5. 6. ^ Dalganjan Mahilane, S/o. Laharu Mahilane, aged about 30 years, R/o. Bhadra, Post Pasid, P.S. Koshir, Tahsil-Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) (Owner and Driver of Tractor Engine No.3095-FJ-128599 Chechis No.KZFSY-128852/007) VERSUS Guddi Bai, Wd/o. Heera Lal Chauhan, aged about 32 years, Minor Kumari Rukhmani Bai, D/o. Heera Lal, aged about 11 years Minor Vijay Kumar, S/o. Heera La! Chauhan,aged about 8 years, Minor Chandani Bai, S/o. Heera Lal Chauhan, aged about 6 years, No.2 to 4 minors, through natural guardian mother Smt. Guddi Bai, Wd/o. Heera Lal Chauhan, Rahasyamati Bai, Wd/o. Dharmu Chauhan, aged about 63 years, All R/o. Village-Gadahabhata, P.S. and Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Raipur (C.G.) (CLAIMANTS) Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandri Raipur (Insurer of Tractor Engine No.3095-FJ-128599 Chechis No.KZFSY-128852/007) AWARD AMOUNT VALUATION OF PRESENT APPEAL Rs.3,25,000/- Rs.3,25,000/- 886T-rl3V^T3IH3A yOlOM 3H1 JO £^T•S/R 1V3ddV Sn03NV^33SIW @ HIGHCOURTOFCHMATTiSGARH.BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'bleShri I.M.QiiddusJ,J.& Hon?bteShriPrashaniKumarMJshra,J. B.A.fClNo.1543 of2009 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS DalganjanMahilane. Versus GuddiBajandothers. Shrj Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the appellant. ShriSachJnSinghRajputandShriAnantBajpai,coun^s^^ respondentNo.6. FoJlowing 5. M. Quddusi.J. ORALORDER (09/03/2011) oral order of the Court. was passed by 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/owner agajnst the impugned awarddated 05/09/2009 passedby II AdditjonalMotQr Accident CJaims Tribunal. Balodabazar (C.G.) in Claim CaseNo. 14/2008 against jmposJngdaNJtytopaycompensationtotheGlaimantsuponhim. 2. Brief facts ofthe case, as narrated in the clajm petition, are that on 14/12/2007 deceased Heeralal aiQns with Ghanshyam Singh were retuming to yjilage Garhabhata from his relative's house in his new motorcycle. Near Sarswati Shishu Mandir, Sarsinwa 9t Saraipali-Sarsinwa road, the offending traetor being driven rashly and negllgentiy by non- applicant No.1 dashed the motorcycje from back side as a result of which Heeralal came under the rear wheels and was crushed and he died on the spot. Deceased was aged about40 years and was working as Mason. He used to earn Rs. 9.000/- per month. Clalmants have claimed -compensation of Rs.22.46.000/-. 3 . We have perused the Lower Court Record and found that there is no evidence about the use of tractor for any other purpose than - J2.- ^) agriculturai pyrpose. The owner of the tractor hjmself appeared in the witness box and stated that he was going 16 unloaci the Gitti (smaltstones) for the purpose of raising construction of pillars over the boundary of his agricultural land. Therefore, the findjngs ofthe Tribunal jn thjs regarcl that thetractor was being used for other purposes thanagricultural purposes is not sustajnable. 4. Further, there was coltisjon between motorcycle and the tractor. The driver of the motorcyde was having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. No fegjstration number was shown on the motorcycle at that time. The motorcycjewasajsonotinsured and as such there was breach of the statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles.iAGt whjch weremandatoryto befollowedand in such eireumsllan^eswhether the owner of the tractor whose driver was havjng valid and effective driving iicence at the time of the accident can be held liable to pay compensation, may be by way of contributory negligeRce. The Tribunal on the basjsofthe findings that the tractor was being used for other purposes than agricultura! purposes fixed the composite {iabiljfy and 50% of which has been fastened on the tractor. 5. In the case ofRaj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another reportecl in 2010 (12) Scale the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph 11 as under:- "11. The Tribunal should not be a sdent spectator when medjcal evidence is tendered jn regard to the injunes and their effect, in particular the extent of permanent disabiJJty. Sections 168and 169ofthe Act make it evident , thatthe Tribunal doesnot function as a neutral umpire as in a c1vil suit, butas an active exptorer and seeker of truth who is requjred to 'hold an enquiry into the cjaim' for determinjng the 'just compensation'. The Tribunal should thereforetake "5- w ^ > ah active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that itcan assess the 'just compensation'. The Tribunat shou!d therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the 'just compensation'." 6. Sectjon 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.1988 (for short 'the Act') provides that an appiication for compensation arisjng out of an accident of the nature specified jn sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made by the persons mentioned therein and Seetion 168 provides that on receipt of an 'appJication for compensation made under Section 166. the Claims Tribunal shall. after giving notice of the appljcation to the insurer and after giving the parties (inciuding the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or. as the case may be.each ofthe claims and, subjeet to the provisions of Section 162 may make an award sdetermining the amount of compensation which appears it to be just and spedfying the person or persons to whom compensation shalj be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall spedfy the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle invoived in the accident or by all or any of them. as the case may be. 7. Rule 226 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules') provides for obtaining of information and documents necessary for awardjng compensation under Section 40. it specjfically provjdes that the Ciaims Tribunal shaif obtain whatever information and documente which may be found necessary from the Poiice. Medical and other aythorities and proceed to award the claim whether the parties who were given notjce-; appear or not, on the appointed date. 8. Therefore, the Tribunalshali conduct an enquiry afresh. The claim petition should not have been treated like a Civil Suit but it is the duty of ^S! /^ :^ II,- •;'W-^M^ :^^ ^ -^- .(^, the Claims Tribunal to hold enquiry as laid-down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofRaj Kumar (supra) as well as provided under Section 168 and Rule 226 ofthe Motor Vehicies Act. 9. Therefore, we are of tbe opinion that the matter requires reeonsideration atthe end ofthe Tribunal. The appeal is allowed in part. The impusned award is set aside and the matter is remitted back tothe Tribunal fordedsjonafresh. 11. Needtess to mention that Tribunal shall give the findjngs afresh on all the issues without being influenGed by its eariier findmgs given in the award as well as by the above observatjon. Opportunity may be given to the parties to amend the pjeadjngs, adduce further evidence, file documents or to get the documents verified etc; and thereafter shall decide the matter afresh. 12. The amount which has been deposited shail remain in deposit tjjl the decision is made afresh. 13. The Lower Court Record shali be sent back without further delay. 14. Noora'erastocosts. ^^> Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- prashant Kumar Mishra Judge __^—-.--—-—-—^" •^