HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: HON'BLB I.M. QUDDUSI & HON'BLE N.K. AGARWAL, JJ M.A. No. 948 of 2003 Vs. APPBARANCB: Mr, A. K. Prasad, counselfor fhe appeUaats. Ms. Pdyauka Nande, counsel for respondent no. 1. Mr. A. K. Atfaaley, counsel for respondent no.3. Per I.M. QUDDU8I. J ORDBR (ORAL) (22.10.2010) 01. This appeal has been filed by the Clatmaats against fhe impugned Order dated 26.06.2003 passed by fhe Motor Accident Clamis Tribunal (F.T.C), Jashpuraagar, ia Clami APPELLANTS 1 Smt. Gulabi Bai Widow of Late Anath Rain, aged about 50 years, caste Uraon, R/o Jashpuraagar, C,G. (for herself aiid appellaat no.2 as her guardiaa), 2 Smt Sugaati Bai Wd/o Late Suresh aged about 17 years, Miaor, Caste Uraon, r/o Jashpuraagar, Distt Jashpiu- (C.G). RESPONDBNTS 1. Haauniaa Prasad Jain, s/o not kaown, aged about 54 years, caste Jaia, r/o Jashpuraagar, Distorict Jashpur (C.G). l.A Rajkuiaar Jaia, s/o Hanuiaan Prasad Jaia, aged about 40 years, r/oJashpuraagar, District Jashpur (C.G). 2. Jai Siagh Yadav, s/o Kishori Siagh Yadav, Caste Yadav, r/o Ratu. Road Raachi, District Raachi Jharkhaad. 3. Dharaaipal Puri s/o Baldev Puri, aged about 40 years, r/o Salkhataaga, Hatiya Distnct Ranchi, Jharkhaad. 4. Braach Manager, The Oriental Insuraace Coiapaay, Bilaspur, Braiich Bilaspur (C,G.) ^^^^^^S^^^^^^^^^,^^^^^,.^<s<^.,,^w^^ '^; '^/ Case No.01/2002 disniissiag the clami xnade by the appeUaats. 02. Brief facts of fhe- case as per fhe version of claiinants are fhat on fateful day Suresh Raoi was driviag the Jeep bearing Regn. No. M.P.26/0221 between Daltenagaoj aad Jashpur pubUc road. At fhat tmie, dne Bus bearing Regn. no. B.H.H,9801 was comiag froin Ranchi aad was goiag towards Deltaagaaj. The aforesaid Jeep aad Bus had inet wifh. head- on-coUusion, as a result ofwhich, Suresh Ram driver offhe Jeep was badly iajured aad was adnutted in Daltenganj hospital aad fhereafter he was admitted ia R.M.C.H. Hospital of Raachi where he died on 09.12.19.89. A criminal case No.75/1989 was registered for ftie offence punishable under sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A ofIPC aad ChaUan was ffled. Suresh Ram was earamg Rs.1500/- per monfh by driviag fhe said Jeep. After his deafh, fhere was no per^on to inamtam his family iacludiag raofher, wife, brotliers ao.d sisters who are dependents ou fhe deceased. At fhe tmie of accident, he was aged about 23-24 years. The niofher aad wife of fhe deceased beiag claimaats have made clafcm u/s 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act clauning to the tune of Rs.6,83,000/- on different heads. The Jeep was iasured with respondent no,4. The Tribunal has held that the deceased was earaiag Rs.1500/- per inonfh by driviag the Jeep No.26/0221, however, it is not proved fhat on 04.12.1989 the aforesaid Bus ao^d Jeep met witihi head-on- collusion on fhe pubUc road at viUage Kadewakam ia which fhe Sureshram Sustained serious injuries aad died on 09.12.1989 due to the said accident It is relevaat here to •^•:^.^^^^ mention that in Para 2 the Tribunal faas recorded that it is an undisputed fact fhat on 04.12.1989 fhe aforesaid Jeep aad Bus met with head-on-collusion due to which the driver ofJeep Snresh Rain died. 03. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim maialy on the ground that the claimants had not filed copy of fhe Registration Certificate ofthe Bus bearing Regn. No.B.H.H.9801 and it is also not known whefher non-applicant 2 & 3 were owner aad driver of the Bus. It has further observed that copy of fhe postmortem report was also not filed. 04. The Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 were framed under the Motor Vehicles Act wtdch have been adopted by the State of Chhattisgarh. Rule 226 provi.es for obtaimng of uifonnation and docuiaents necessary for awarding compensation under section 40. It elabomtely provides that the Claims Tribunal shaU obtaia whatever mformation and documents which may be found necessary from the poUce, Medical and other authorities and proceed to award the claiai whether the parties who were given notice, appear or not, on the appointed date. 05. Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that an appUcation for compensation arisia^ out ofan accideut of the nature specified ia sub-section (1) ofsectioa 165 may be made by the persons mentioned thercin. Sectionl68 provides that on receipt of aa appUcation for coiapensation raade under section 166, fhe Claims Tribunal shaU, after giving notice of the appUcation to the msurer and after giving fhe pardes (includmg the insurer) aa opportumty ofbeiag heard, ;»p^ ,^^ 5^?~'~"^' hold an mquiiy into fhe claim or, as fhe case may be, each of the clauns aad, subject to the provisions ofsection 162 may make aa award determicdng fhe amount of compensation which appears it to be just aad specifyiag fhe person or persons to whom compeiisation shaU be paid aad ia makiag fhe award fhe Claims Tribunal shaU specify the amount which shall be paid by fhe iasiirer or owner or driver of fhe vehicle iavolved ia the accident or by all or any of them, as fhe case inay be. 06. Section 140(1) of fhe Act provides that where death or pennaaent disablenient of aay person has resiilted from an accident arisiag out of fhe use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles, fhe owner of fhe vehicle shafl, or as the case may be, fhe owners of fhe vehicles shall joinfly aad severaUy, be Uable to pay compensation ia respect of such deafh or disablement ia accordaace wifh fhe provisions of fhis section. 07. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstaaces of fhe case, fhe Tribunal shoiild have followed the provisions of Rule 226 aad shpuld have summoned fhe records from fhe PoUce, Medical aad ofher authorities like R.T.O. and then decide the claim petition on the basis of evidence aad ofher relevant material on record ia accordance wifh law but fhe Tribiinal has not followed fhe provisions of Rule 226. Therefore, we are of the opinion that fhe matter requires reconsideration at fhe end ofTribunal. 08. In view of the above, we allow this appeal ia part, set aside the impugned award and remit fhe matter back to the '^-•^' ^^f i^ d Tribunal for decision aj&esh at fhe earUest The Tnbunal shaU provide opportunity to the pardes to adduce further evidence ifaayand shall conduct aa enquiiy aad foUow fhe provisions of Rule 226 ia decidiag the claun petition. The records offhe Tribunalshall be sent back forthwifh. c Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge ^- Sd/- N.K.Agarwal judge Rao y f€f ^ ~~'~^ SS^SSSS^SmBET----