BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CMHATISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (0 No. t> ^ /2010 APPELLANTS / JE1.AIMANTS LCM ^••.-><A-V 1. Shri Premudas Rai, S/o Late Dhanau Rai, Aged about 50 years, 2. Smt. Meenabai Rai, y>\f^'^\^' y' w/o shri Premudas Rai, ...-•"^ "".A^ i» RESPONDENTS: y^' ^ %^ ^' \^ ^^' ^fe^' Aged about 45 years, Both R/o Village Tehda, Thana Newra Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS ^. Deendayal Verma, S/o Thanuram Verma, Aged about 55 years, R/o Village Tehda, Thana Newra Raipur, District Raipur(C.G.) (Driver and Owner of Tractor Old Regd No.M.I.T.7526, New Regd. No. C.G. 04/ZQ/6427) 2. Smt Kirtibai, W/o Kalicharan Verma, R/o Village Kumhari, Thana Newra, District Raipur ( C.G.) (Owner of the Tractor Trolley Bearing Regd. No. C.G. 04/ DB/1953) | 3. Iffco and Tokio General Insurance CompanyLimited, _ „ ShaBs^tysn Veca«» S/a I»ate teaaaran VeEB>a» B/o Village Tehda* ihana Bewra» Raipur* Blstri.ct Ralpur (e.s*)« ^^ ^ ^ APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 FORCOMPENSATION AMOUNT ..^f"--^^; .'s'^Aa ^^ tf f " '% *&^A<"»>. 1 K'-'fi'"'?i:5L^'.:.i>.s?i?'-'.?^ 'f. l^ir?J HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'JLEMR. G. MTNHAJUiDblN. JJ. Apoellants Clabnants Respondents MArclNo. 533/2010 Shri Premudas Rai and another Vs Deendayal Verma and others. Present: y Mr. Satyendra Sahu, cminsel (w the appdlant^t^aimants. Mr. SC Verma, wunsel ftw responctente No. 1 & 2. OR R(OrdI (12"'August,20l1) Per I.M. Quddusi. J This appeal has been flled under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award of the itf" AdcWonal Molor Accktent Claims Tribunal, Raipur dated 2ml Fdiruary, 2010 pMsed in Claim Case No.68TO by the appellant$/clErimants, cUsmteslng the claim petition ofthe daimants as nd: malntahiable. 02) Brief feKrts of the case are that on 7.6.2008 at about 11 pm Deepak Kumar Ral was traveling in Tractor bearing old No. MIT-7526 and Trofley No. CG-04-DB-1953. The Tractor is owned by re^onctent No.1 whereas the Trolley is owned by respondert No.2 and the same .wasinsuredwith respondent No.3 at the relevant Ume. On the date of acclctent, respondent No.1, owner of the Tractor, was driving the Tractor in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which Deepak Kumar Rai, who was sitting over the engine of the Trador, fell down from the Tractor and sustained grievous injuries. He was Immedlately rushed to hospital, however, during the couree of treatonent he succumbed to the injuries on 10.6.2008. Report of the accktent was lodged at Pollce Station : Nevra, Distt. Raipur whereupon offence waa regi^ered against respondent No.1, 03) At the time of atwident. the deceased was 22 years, who was earning Rs.150/- per day by .doing labour work in the Tractor. SSBamawsssm 'sr-m' -s^ Zi ..as^ .y ;:/ 2^ Therefore, theelalmants, who sre parents trfthedec^sed.beh^rts tegal heirs filed a claim petitton under Sectton 163A of Vhe Moter Vehlcles Act, 1988 (in shwt "the Acf) for a total GompensaHon of Rs.8,87,000/- against the death of Deepak Kumar Rai under various heads. 04} However, leamed Tribunal, after ctose scndiny of the evldence adduced by the parties before it, by the impugned award dlsmtssed the claim petitlon as being not malntalnable. 05) We have heard leamed counsel for the parUes, perused the LCR as also the impugned award. 06) Upon perusal of the LCR, we have found that the Tribunal has i framed issue regarding the fect wh^her the acddent had taken pl«» during the use of motor vehicle l.e. Tractor in questfon. Hovwver, the claim petition has been dismissed on the ground that owner of the vehicle was not Impleaded as a party. In fact, the <wmer of the vettele namely Thanuram Verma had died before the date of accident snd the vehicle was entered in the name of his brother after Wie date of accklent. Therefore, it was the duty of the Tribunal to direGt ttie claimants to implead legal heirs of owner of the vehlde Thmuram Verma as non-applfcants and it was also the duty of the Tribunal to conduct enquiry as provided under Secttons 168,169 of the Act, 1^8 and Rule 226 of the CG Motor Vehtele Rules, 1994, and the dalm petition should not have been treated as a dvil suit. 07) In the case of Raj Kumar Ms. AJay Kumar and anotter, reported in 2010 INDLAW SC 999 : 2010(1^ Scsrfe 2S5, the Htm'ble Supreme Court, in para-11 , has held thus: 'Para 11 The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medteal evtelence te tendered in regard to the injuries and thelr effect, in partlcular the extent of permanent disability. SeGtkms 168 and 169 of the Act make tt evident that the Tribunat does not funcUon as a neutral umplre as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer aml seeker of truth who is required to 'hokl an enquiry into the clalm' for determining the 'just compensation'. •.—~, •'~J~~~^SS-. •""S;-—E?SI •wS' ;; ''-•^N ' 7."] The Tribunal should therefore take an acUve r<rie to ascertain the tme and correct p<»itfonso that ft can assess the lust compensation'. Whlte dealhg with personal injury cases, the Tribunal shouki preferably equip ttself wtth a Medfoal Dfotionary and a Handbook for evaluation of permanwtf physfcal impalrment (for example the Manual for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairmert tbr Orthopedic Surgeons, prepared by American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons or tts IncUan equivalent or trther authorized texte) fer understanding the medfcal evldence and assessing the physteal and functtonal dlsabitlty. The Tribunal may also keep in view the ffist schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which gives some Indteatfcm about the extent of permanent disability in different types of injuries, in the case of wortonen. If a Doctor giving evidence uses technical medksal terms, the Tribunal shauW instruct him to state in akBlwi, In simple non-medteal terms, the nature and the effect of the injury. If a doctor glves evldence about the percentage of permanent (fisability, ttie Tribunal has to seek darifteation as to wh^ier such percentage of disability Is the functtonal disability wWh reference to the whole bedy or whether it Is only with reference to a llmb. If the percentage of permanent dtsabUity Is stsrted wKh reference to a limb. the Tribunal witl have to seek the doetor's opinion as to whether it js posslble to deduce the corresponcflnig functloral permanent disabiltty with reference to the whole body and if so the percentage." 08) In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the mdter requires reconsideratlon at the end (rf the Tribunal. Therefore, we allow this appeal in part and remlt the matter back to the daims .a.»53g'%. ^- '-.usa. Tribunal to dectde the case afresh after giving owwtunity of heartng to the (rarties.in the light ofthe observations made above. Needless to mention that the parties shalt ateo be altowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence, file documents aiwl ge* the ckxiuments verified etc. and thereafter, fresh findings shall be tfven by the Tribunal and award shall be passed afresh. The Tribunal shall also conduct an enquiry into the clalm for determining the just compensation as provided under Sections 168, 169 of the Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of the CG Motor Vehicle Rutes, 1 994. The pttfiee recwd shatt also be summoned by the Tribunal for perusal in order to make an endeavour that the claimants should not be denied the ju^ and legitimate compensation. 09) Parties shatl appear before the Tribunal on ^>h Septembw, 2011. 10) LCR shaH be sent back to the Tribunal without further delay. 11) No order as to costs. 12) Certifled copy as per rules. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge J U DG E ^