IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUbICATURE AT BILASPUK Misc. Appeal [c] NoTT^ OF 200S APPELLANT (Insurer) <^ ^%. ^" "o^'^-s' € v< ••^' .V .^y ^-•'. Vs RESPONbENTS: laimant bciver of the Vehicle Owner of the Vehicle c- ;{^Rf%l ^^.n^i |^ J ^' The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through the bivisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bilaspur, Rama trade center opposite Rajeev Plaza near bus stand Bilaspur (CG) 1. Chandrhas bubey S/o Ramdas bubey Aged About 45 years. ^ 2y Kaveri Oubey W/o Chandrhas bubey aged about 40 years. Both are R/o Purani Bashti Pendra, P.S. Pendra, Th. Pendraroad district Bilaspur C.G. 3. Shabbir Mohamamd Aged 43 ^ years S/o Gulam Mohamad R/o Modhapara Raigarh District Raigarh C.G. ^ ^. Shankar byal Singh S/o Ramkripal Singh R/o Kondatari Raigarh bistrict Roigarh C.G> APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE ~^~ AWARb/ORbER DATED 28.04.2008 PASSED BY. THE ADOITIONAL MOTOR ACCIbENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ^c. BILASPUR . (C.G.) IN C.T. N0.27/2007. ApDeal valued at Rs. Rs.15/- PENDRAROAD DISTRICT ,500/- Fee affixed ^.W^sw !^^^^^^^^''KS'S-'-SSSS^'r"Z!^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. (QNo. 178 of 2009 Appellant The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Versus Respondents Chadrhas Dubey & others MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8s Hon'ble Shri G. Minhajuddin, JJ /' 1— Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Y. Chaturvedi, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. None for the respondents No. 3 and 4. <© ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 20th day ofJuly, 2011 ) PerI. M. Quddusi J. The instant appeal, filed by the appellant/Insurance Company arises from the award dated 28.4.2008, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pendra Road, District - Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 27/2007, awarding a sum of Rs. 5,62,500/- along with interest at the rate pf 6% p.a. The ground of challenge in this appeal is so far as the Tribunal has imposed the liability to pay compensation upon the appellant/Insurance Company as well as the quantum. The permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was granted to the appellant. The facts, in brief, are that on 4.7.2007 when the deceased Satish Dubey was going on his motorcycle near Athara Nala at Lakhagram the Bus, bearing registration No. C.G. 04-ZA/0112, which was being driven by the non-applicant No.l ( Shabbir Mohd.) in a rash and ^;^;'aiudfi<'K>TO-:" •:fy negligent manner hit the motorcycle from the opposite direction. As a result of this accident Satish Dubey crushed by the front wheel of the bus which was of the driver side of the vehicle and died. 5. The legal heirs/parents of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation ofRs. 45,50,000/- under various heads. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record awarded a sum of Rs. 5,62,500/- as compensation along with simple interest @ 6% per annum. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the lower Court's record. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised a contention to the effect that the original driving licence was not filed rather a Xerox copy was filed which was not admissible. However, we have perused the record and found that the police had seized the driving licence No. 55372/94 which has been shown to be valid up to 12.10.2008 but learned counsel for the appellant submitted that according to the report of the investigator its validity had expired on 18.5.2002, although no such evidence has come on record. In our opinion, the Tribunal had to conduct a proper enquiry into the matter and find out whether the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident or not but the Tribunal has failed to conduct such enquiry. It should have summoned the police record but that has not been done. It appears that the Tribunal has treated the claim petition as a civil suit. 9. In view of th'e above we are of the opinion that the Tribunal should have conducted proper enquiry to ascertain the veracity of the truth. -.^-^-^.-— ^N^ 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & another{ 2010 (12) SCALE} in para 11 has held that KThe 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 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does notfunction as a 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\ 11. Therefore, in view of what has been observred 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. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. 12. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we allow this appeal in part, set- aside the impugned award dated 28.4.2008 and remit back the matter to the Tribunal for decision afresh in view of the observations made hereinabove. No order as to costs. 13. 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. 14. Parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 17th August, 2011. 15. The lower Courts record shall be sent back forthwith. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Thakur