^' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (Cl No. [ O <2---6f 2009 -a. -%...0^- ^^^if'1.! ||^iSi®R ~smm APPELLANTS ^ .....^•^s •^'^^^ ^.-•^oP^/ RESPONDENTS/ Claimants /^^^^ //y^~^%, j;|SJL^^^i l^ ^ ./^^ :1. 2. Niraj Singh, S/o S.N. Singh, aged about 37 years, R/o Shivnath Road, near Jatia Rond, Jarhabhata, P.0. & District-Bilaspur (C.G.) (Owner of the Truck No. C.G.-10-Z.B./2606) Ravi Kumar Maravi, S/o Tulsiram Maravi, aged about 27 years, R/o Village-Lamer, Police Station-Kota, Revenue Court/Tahsil-Kota, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) (Driver of the Truck No. C.G.-10-Z.B./2606) VERSUS :1. Smt. Anjani Kashyap, W/o Late Chandan Kashyap, aged about 36 years, 2. Rupesh Kumar Kashyap, aged about If^ears, ^. 3. Ku. Rupali Kashyap, aged about17 years, 4. Ku. Ruchi Kashyap, aged about 15 years, • 5. Ku. Rusali Kashyap, aged about 14 years, Respondent No. f, 3, 4, &5 are heirs of Late Chandan ^,hYig , and Smt. Anjani Ka^iyap is^^fter'^^ of respondent No. tr3, 4 & 5, All resident of Kududand, Manglanagar,p-oA- District-Bilaspur 6. Smt. Poonam Kashyap, W/o Late Chandan Kashyap, aged about 27 years, 7. Bajrangi Kashyap, S/o Late Chandan Kashyap, aged about 03 years, ^^ -(2)-1;'1:;-'-.:"-,| ^iAt^P^^J?^ Smt. Poonam Kashyap islmotherof Bajrang Kashyap, Respondent No. 6 & 7 are R/o Kududand, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District-Bilaspur (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 '^ ^1^'iRf 'x HIGH COURT OF CHHATTtSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR.T.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR.GULAM MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. M.A. Fcl No.102/2009 Appellant Niraj Sfnghand another Vs Resoondents Smt. Anjani Kashyap & another Present: Mr. M.K. Chouhan, Advocate fortheappellant. Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the respondente. )RDER(Oral) (8thAugust,2011) t.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellants-owner & driver of offending vehicle against the impugned award dated 31.10.2008 whereby the learned 2 Additional Motor Accident Ctaims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') has allowed the claim application of the claimants and awirded them compensation. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants, who are legal representatives of deceased Chandan Kashyap, have filed a claim application under Sectbn 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988') claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.36,85,000/- for the death of said Chandan Kashyap in the motor accident which took place on 16.1.2007 at about 2.30 p.m. when the vehicle of the deceased was dashed by the truck bearing registration number CG10-ZB-2606, which was being driven in rash and negligent manner by its drh/er. The claimants have claimed compensation on the ground that the deceased was the sole earning member in the family and they were dependent on his earnings. 4. The Claims Tribunal allowed fie clatm application and awarded a sum of Rs.8,08,000/- as compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Prem Saxena, who was ctted as eye-witness to the incident, has stated in his statement that though he had seen the accident but he is unable to explain as to whether there was any negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle or not. Thus, it is clear that there was no eyewitness to the incident and in this circumstance the Claims Tribunals has committed a mistake in holding that ttie accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offencting vehicle. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned award. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the Claims Tribunal as also the findings given in the impugned award. 8. It is not in dispute that the deceased died due to the motor acddent with the vehicle in question and therefore, a first information reportwas lodged giving the number of the offending vehicle and thereafter the body was sent for post- mortem examination. However, it is not known as to whether the Police have filed charge-sheet or not after completion of investigation. Further. the owner & driver of the vehicle have not entered into the witness box. In these circumstances, it was bounden duty of the Claims Tribunat to conduct an enquiry, as provided under Sections 168 & 169 of the Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, to find out the truth and for this, the Claims Tribunal can direct the claimants to get the necessary witnessessummoned by issuing summons to them or can summon such witnesses suo motu. But, no enquiry has been conducted by the Claims Tribunal in the instant case and therefore, we feel that the matter requires reconsideratton at the endt of the Claims Tribunal. 9. In the result, we allow the appeal in part, set aside the impugned award and remit the matter back to the Claims 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 documents or verify the documents already filed ete. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribuna) on 14 Seotember. 2011. The Claims Tribunal shall make an endeavour to decide claim applteation as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this award. 10.The Registry is directed to transmit record of the Claims Tribunal concerned without.furtherdelay. No order as to coste. u Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge