y'^^ASH^ '•^^ ^^4-: IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (C) No. ln5 /2011 (D.B.) Il¥Jft§-?'^^^:5^ APPELLANTS Claimants 1. Bhukauram S/o Dugga Rana, agedabout 45 years, Shamdai W/o Bhukauram, aged about 40 years, Laxmanram, S/o Bhukauram, agedabout 13 years, Vinodram S/o Bhukauram, aged about 10 years, Avinash S/o Bhukauram, aged about 08 years, Claimant no. 3 to 5are minor, through legal .,^£^'^/ guardian ofappellant no. 1 (Bhukauram), (not ^yy^^ mentioned in impugned award), All the claimants are residentof Badko, P.S. Mardapal, Tahsil - Kondagaon, District - Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS 2. 3. 4. 5. y ^ ^'^' .^^ ^y ^}y ^^> oy' ^ /' RESPONDENTS (Driver) Qwner 1. Sunderram S/o Chamruram Yadav, aged about 25 years, Resident of Pohmar, P.S. Mardapal, Tahsil - Kondagaon, District - Bastar (C.G.) 2. Ramchand S/o Mangaluram Kashyap, aged about 32 years, Resident of B'ade Kurusnar, Tahsil - Kondagaon, District - Bastar (C.G.) Insurer 3. The National Insurance Company Limited, Branch-Jagadalpur, NearCentral Bank, District - Bastar (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 ^llL^^nt-F^^^J^T~.J^L.ir^./^J.-A.IAJI^.^rajE».l-.IA.l^l /'^;^ "% ^' ^ .^f^'^ ^f^ v<^^<^ i^m^^^ ")\ ^t HI^H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUft QIYISIQNBENCH: HON'BLE WR. I.M.QU&DUSI & HON'BLE MR.fiUb^M MINH/kJUDDIN. JJ: Appellants Resoondents M.A. [C1 No. 105/2011 Bhukauram & others Vs Sunderram <& o-rtiers Mr- Prakash Tiwari, Advocate for the appellcuits, Even in the second call none appeared on behaif of respondent Nos4 «& 2, Mr. S-N. Nande, Advocate for the re^ondent No»3, OftDER (Oral) (25th Juiy. 2011) XJA. Quddust. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appellants-claimonts have filed 1+ii$ misc&llcyneous oppeal against thc award dated 05.10.2010 passsd by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (FTC), Kondagaon, District Bastar (for short tthe Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.15/2010 dismissin9 the claim cpplication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 13.12.2009 deceased Lakhmuram was returning from Kondagaon on his bicycle to his house situate in Village Badko <xnd when he reached near Forest Rest House, AAardapal ftoad, a vehicle bearing registration number C617-b-0726, which was coming from oppo^Jte direction and being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed the bicycle of said Lakhmuram as a result his head was crushed and he died on the spot. Since the death of said Lakhmuram had caused financial loss to the claimant, therefore, they filed a claim application seeking compensation to the tune of fts.13,75,000/-. 4. The CJaims Tribund vide impugned award dismissed claim of 1+ie claimants on the ground that the claimants failed t@ estabtish the fact that 1+ie deceased died in an accident which has taken place due to rash and ne9li9®"tdriying of the driver of offendin9 vehicle and therefope they are . entitled to receive compenaxtion from thenon-Gpplicants. ?3F2-S5"^g?—--—-—.^w;-7" flf. •^ ^.. •^. "^. ^. al 9, We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused 1+»e records of the Claims Tribunal, 6, On careful scrutiny of the records, we found 1fiat claim petition of the ctoimants has been decided by the Claims Tribunal treating it as if the soime was a civil suit, which is evident from the finding of the Claims Tribunal on Issue No.l decided with Issue No,3 wherein it has been mentioned that the claimants had failed to produce -t+ie Inves^ating Officer of -the case and driver of the offending vehicte. However, a further perusal of the record shows that though the first information repart was reglstered Qgainst unknown vehicte but during investigation the police found that it was 1+ie offending vehicle by which Ihe accident had taken ptace and therefore the Investigating Officer had filed the ch^e sheet under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. a9ainst the driver of offending vehicle. 7, Sectton 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that on receipt of application for compensation, the Claims Triteunal shall hold an inquiry into Itie claim, Section 169 of the Act/ 1988 prescribes procedure and powers of 1+ie Claims Tribunal and says that in holding any inquiry under Section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rutes that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it -riijnks fit. The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcin9 the anendance of witnesses and of compellm9 the discovery and production of documents and material objects ond for such other purposes as may be prescribed <md the Cbims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court- for all the purposes of Section 19S and Chapter XXVI of the Cr.P.C. Besides this, in ftuie 226 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 also it has been provided that the Claims Tribunal shall conduct enquiry to ascertain 1tie fact. Even in 5ection 166 (4) of the Act, 1988 it / hos been provided that the Claims Tribunat shall treat any reporr of 1tie accident forwarded to it under sub-^ction (6) of Sectian 158 as an fl^plication for compensation uncte-r this Act, / 8, In view of above, we are of the opinion that the Ctaims Tribunal should not have treated 1+ie claim application fited under the provisions of the Act, 1988 as a civil suit as jt was bQunden duty of the Claims Tribunal to conduct /./ ^ fl. ^ ^•-!%^ ^.^ ^. .- / proper enquiry including issuing direction to the claimants to 9et llie necessary witnesfi^s summoned by issuing summons to ttiem or should have surnmoned the witnesses suo matu with an intention to find out the truth regarding accident, vehicle & driver of vehicte involved in the acddent. For the aforesaid view we are supported by the judgment of 11he Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay ICunw & wiother reported in 2010 (12) SCALE 265 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that u,,,.., Ihe Tribunal ^haufd not be a sitent ^pectatar when mec/ical evidlence is tendered in regard to the mjuries and Iheir effcct, mparticu^ the extent of permoaTent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of 1he Act make it evidlent Ihat the Tribunat does not function QS a netftmf umpire a^ m a civil ^it, but as anaclive explorer and seeker of tniiff who is reqt/ired to hofdanen^uiry into the claim' for determining the 'just compensatian\ Jhe Tnbwwf ^ould therefore take an active rale to ascertam ihe true and cornsct po^ition w Ihat it <xin assessthe ^/ust compensation.....^ <K^ 9. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the oppeai in part, set aside the impugned award and remit the matt-er back to the Claims Tribunal for taking decision afresh in light of observations made in this order. Needless to mention that the Claims Tribunat shall proyide opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, cxnd amend the pleadings or to file dlocuments or verify the documents already filed etc. i lO.The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal concerned on 25 Ay^ust. 2011. T1ie Registry is directed to trcmsmit record of the Cjaiins Tribunai concerned without furt+ier delay. No order asj^costi .^ ftoshan/- Sd/- Dr. I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- G.Minhajuddm Judge