:ft INJ-Htl^'Bl^Hl^igaUlTOF^C^ M.A.(C)No^^^^^^^^ ^BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORtENT^I, INSirRANGK CO. I^TD., &IVISIONAL QFIFICK, MALVIYA NAGAR, DURG AFPELLANT RESPONDENTS yG- . vrs. • :, . .• : ., :'.;•' SMT. SHAMINA BEGUM ^IDOW OF AJAMTUfcLABKHAN, AGE45¥RS. .^ ^^ p - . :f^5i^c^^.-^ . AMANTULLAff , :, S/0 •.LATE' <~^^ O-^.-y AJAMTULLAH KBrAN,AGE29VRS. \^'' . -: ^: . . .' J :'. ;:/ .•; :.' ^..^e^'^^--<' j^' ASHIYA FATHER OF LATE '> ."^ .. ' ' ^AJAMTULLAH: KHAN, A(5E'2S: YKS... >w % ^- A-- r" ft< IMANTULLAB KHAN S/0 LATEL AJAMTULLAH KHAN, AGE 23 YRS, '•ALL RESIDENT OF NEAR OF UCO BANK, TATA LWE, KOHKA, BKILAI, DISTT.-DURG ASHAMA BiEGUM W/0 YtfSIIE AI.I, AGE 31 YRS..KESIDENTOF -13^0/474 SABUPtJRVA, MAYA MASZID RGAD, BABARGANJ KANFUR, DISTT.- KANPUR(U.)P.) . : • ;:.:,.: .; NtRMAL KUMAR DAS S/0 BALHAttI AGE 48 YRS,, RESIDENT OT HQtSE N0.- 19/43, BRAHMA^PAjftA, DHAMTARI, PRESENT- CHANB&AKAR C010NY, MADQDA, NEWAI, DtSTT.- DURG, (DRIVER OF BUS N0.- G.G. 07 Z.A./016) , . .. ,, • . ::,,-.; ARIHANT TRAVELS THROUGH PAyAl, TRAyELS. BtTS STAND, DURG, (QWNER OF BUS N0.- G.G.07 Z.A./Oltffi) f- :APPE^lJNDER:SECI'lQ I73^©FRIOTORA®mGLE'^ APFEALVM.UEDRs.lZ,?9,3007-(APPEALByiNSCRANClD ^ GOMPENSATIONGI.AlMEDBEFORETRIBUN^Rs.70,0(),OiB(]i?- AWARDED AMOIINT B¥TKIBUNAL Rs. 12,99,300/- &1. fll WX:S SSS :19s^^ ^. g) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR.GULAM MINHAJUDDIN. JJ M.A.rdNo.100/2008 Appellant Respondents Vs Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Smt. Shamina Begum & others Present: IVIr. Sudhir /^arwal, Advocate for theappellant. Mr. Raja Shaona, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate for the respondent Nos.6 & 7. ORDER(Orall (01.08.2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appellant-lnsurance Company has filed this miscellaneous appeal against the award dated 03.10.2007 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (CG) (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.78/2006. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the claimants, who are widow, chitdren and mother of deceased Ajmatullah, have flled a claim application under SecUon 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988') claiming compensation of Rs.70,00,000/- for the death of ttie said Ajmatulfah in the motor accident which took place on 6.11.2005 when the motorcycle on which the deceased was returning to his house along with his friend Ramjeevan was dashed by the offending vehicle i.e. bus bearing registration number CG07-ZA- 0106 on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of said vehicle. The claimants have claimed compensation on the ground that the deceased was the sole earning member in the famity and they were dependent on his earnings. 4. The Claims Tribunal vide impugned award allowed ctaim of the claimants on the ground, awarded a sum of Rs.12,99,30)/- and fastened liability on the appellant herein to pay the compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-lnsurance Company has submftted that no eyewitness of the accident was produced by the ctaimants in support of their claim and hence the award has been made in absence of any proof. 6. vye have heard learned counsel for the appellant. We have atso perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 7. On perusal of the record, 'rt is revealed that the police after completion of investigation have filed the charge sheet under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. in which names of the witnesses have been shown. Alongwith the charge sheet, the police have also flled the documents including driving licence of the driver of offending vehicle seized during investigation. 8. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that on receipt of apptication for compensation, the Claims Tribunat shall hold an inquiry into the claim. Section 169 of the Act, 1988 prescribes procedure and powers of the Ctaims Tribunal and says that In holding any inquiry under Section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, sybject toany rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it Uiinks ffi. The Claims Tribunal shatl have alt the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidenee on oath and of enforcing attendance of the witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposesas may be prescribed and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Couit for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Cr.P.C. Besides ttiis, in Rule 226 ofthe Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994also it has been provided that the Ctaims Tribunal shall conduct enquiry to ascertain the fact. 9. In the matter of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & another reported in 2010 (12) SCALE 265 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that"......(fte Tribunal shouklnc^ be a silent spectator when mecScal evidence is tendered m fegaid to Vne injuries and Vneir effect, m particular the extent of permanent ch'sability. SecVons 168 and 169 of the Act make it evkSent that the Tribunal cfoes not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active expkMer and seeker oi twth who is required to 'hokl an enquiry into ttw claim' for deiermining the 'just compensaVon'. The Tribunal should therefwe teke an acSve nole to ascertain the tme and correct position so that it can assess the 'Just compensation........." 10.1n view of above, it is clear that intention of the legislature is to provide just and legitimate compensation to the claimants of the deceased or to the injured.as the case may, and therefore the provision for conducting enquiry by the Claims Tribunal to find out the truth has been Inserted in the Act, 1988. Therefore, In the instant case the Claims Tribunal should not have treated the claim apptication filed under the provisions of the Act, 1988 as a civit suit and should have cdnducted an enquiry to find out the truth regarding accident, offending vehicle & its driver involved in the accident. For this, the Claims Tribunal should have issued direction to the claimante to file process for summoning the witnesses or should have summoned the witnesses' suo motu. N. \ Roshan/- 11 .For the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal in part, set aside the impugned awardand remit the matter back to the Ctaims Tribunal for taking decision afresh in light of observations made in this order. Needless to mention that the Claims Tribunal shall provide opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, and amend the pleadings or to file documente or verify the documents ete. already filed. The Claims Tribunal shall also consider the application fited bythe Insurance Company under Section 170 oftheAct, 1988. 12.It is further directed that the amount, which has already been deposited by the appellant-lnsurance Company and yet not disbursed to the claimants, shall not be e'rther refunded to the appellant-lnsurance Company or disbursed to the claimants and it shatl be kept in a flxed deposit scheme of a nattonalized bank till the decision is taken afresh by the Claims Tribunal. 13.The appellant is directed to appear before the Cteims Tribunal concerned on 6th September. 2011. The Regishy is directed to transmit record of the Claims ^I'ribynat concerned wrthout further delay. Noorder as to costs. Sd/- I-M.Quddusi Judgc Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge \.