c ^>! IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL(QNo. P\)^ / 2010. APPELLANT CLAIMANT Vinay Soni, S/o. Krishna Prasad Soni, aged about 26years, Occupation Business (Hat >.. (\fi'y€t^] Bazar), R/o. Village Sattipara, ^ ^ ^^. 11 .;:^^- Karbala Road, Police Station and Tahsil .- - Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C. G.) ^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. ^. t^'° 3. Ajeet Kumar Singh, S/o. Jamadar Singh, R/o. Haldibadi Chirmiri, Police Station Chirmiri, Tahsil Manedragarh, District Korea (C.G.) (Vehicle Owner of C.G.16 ZD-0845) Mohd. Abdul Ajeej Khan, S/o. Abdulgani Khan, aged about 38 years, R/o. Haldibadi Chirmiri, Police Station Chirmiri, Tahsil Manedragarh, District Korea (C.G.) (Vehicle Driver of C.G.16 ZD-0845) United India Insurance Com. Ltd., Through : Branch Manager, Branch Office Brahroad Ambikapur, Disti-ict Sarguja (C.G.) (Insurance Comp. ofoffending vehicle) ITLTHEH j APPELLANT CLAIMANT .^:. ......^"s^ ^"r:.'.'..^- ^^•""~ . RESPQNDENTS .e^;'^ ^'T^." 3. Smt. Noorjahan Bano, Legal Heir & Wd/o. Mohd. Abdul Ajeej Khan, aged about 42 years, R/o. Haldibadi, Pankha Dafai. Chirmiri, P.S. Chirmiri, Tahsil Manendragarh, Distt Korea (C.G.) A£EEALU^-1730PfflEMOTOR VEHICLEACT1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri I.M. Quddusi. J. & Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra. J. APPELLANT RESPONDENTS IVI.A.(CVNo. 913 of 2010 Vinay Sonj Versus Ajeet Kumar and others. APPELLANT RESPONDENTS M.A.(QNo. 914 of 2010 Krishna Soni Versus Ajeet Kumar and others. IVISSC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE IVIOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 Appearance: Shri Shravan Kumar Agrawal, counsel for the appellant. Shri Syed Majid Ali, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Brijesh Singh, counsel for respondont No.1 . Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for respondQnt No.3. ORAL ORDER (05/01/2011) Following oral order of the Court was passed by I. M. Quddusi. J. These are two appeals filed against the impugned awards dated 30^06/2010 in ClaJm Case Nos.61/07 & 66/07 arising out of the same accident djsmjssjng the claim petitions of the injured claimants. (2) The brief facts of the case are that on 26/05/2007 appellant Vinay Soni went to Dhanora Pratappur for selling artificial jewelry and in the evening when he was retuming back to his home along with Krishna Soni, between Bihj Badi and Pratappur Puliya the jeep bearing registration No. C.G.16 ZD - 0845 dashed the appellants and they received jnjuries. Both .,,-.'^^ fv^ ?'t-^^ :-""9j - ^a^ -^- of them were admitted in District Hospital, Ambikapur for treatment. The appellant Vinay Soni and Krishna Soni filed claim petitions claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.10,85,000/- and Rs.9,85,000/- respectively. (3) A perusal of the F.I.R. shows that the Head Constable had given a report which was recorded on 15/06/2007. In the meantime, it had already become a Medjcal Legal Case on 04/06/2007 i.e. much earlier to the recording of the F.I.R. In the reference it was suggested the opinion can be obtained from the freating Orthopedic Surgeon. The operations were also conducted as the claimants/patients were admitted jn the Hospital. (4) Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that on recejpt of an application for compensation made under section 166, the Claims Tribunat shal!, after gjving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard. hoid an inquiry into the claims or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to jt to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the jnsurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them. as the case may be. (5) The rules made under the Motor Vehicle Act namely M.P. Motor Vehicle Rules adopted by the State of Chhattisgarh also provides details with regard to codduct of cases by the TribunaJ. (6) Rule 226 of the Motor Vehjcle Rules, 1994 (for shoft 'the Rules') briefly provides for obtaining of information and documents necessary for awarding compensation. It elaborately provides that the Claims Tribunal shall obtain whatever jnformation and documents which may be found necessary from the Police, Medical and other authorities and proceed to wsfy^^ /s'l^-s':s^ 1"^ :€i -3 ^) award the claim whether the parties who were given notice, appear or not, on the appointed date. (7) Therefore, in the Motor Accident cases, it is duty of the clajms Tribunal to find out the truth. It is not a general litigation between the parties. Even in the Motor Vehicles Act sub Section 4 of .Section 166 provides that:- "(4) The Cfaims Tribunaf shal) tfBst any report of accidents fowarded to it under sub-sectton (6) of section 158 as an appficQtion for compensation tinder this Act" (8) Therefore, as to whether in fact accident had taken place injuring the claimants was to be determjned by conducting thorough inquiry by the Tribunal in accordance with the provisions made in the rutes quoted above. But. in the instant case the Tribuna! has fajjed to follow the rules and therefore we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideratjon at the end ofthe Tribunal. (9) In view of the above discussion, we set-aside the impugned award and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for decision afresh in the light of the observation made above. The Tribuna! shall allow the parties to amend the pleadings, adduce the evidence, file documents or to get the documents verifieci etc. He shall also conduct an inquiry which is necessaryfor determination ofthe truth and shall take decision thereafter. (10) The appeals are allowed in part to the above extent, (11) No order as to costs. (12) A copy of this order be placed jn M.A.(C) No. 913/2010 and M.A.(C) No.914/2010. _- Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge y^