c.p. i ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (Cl No. % 7 / 2009 APPELLANTS N.A. No. 1 & 2 ^^•- ^e'"- ^'^•WA!^^ ^^%3" v^-^3' ^\. BharatLal S/o L.R. Patel, 47 years, 2. Raru Prasad S/o Gayaram Patel, 68 years, Both R/o Village Uraikachar, Post Ghan&ghat, Tahsil Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS CLAIMATNS ^l. 2. 3. 4. N.A. No. 3 Chandrika Bai, Wd/o La.tc Rameshi Lal Patel, aged about 38 years, Jitendra Kumar, S/o Late Rameshi Lal Patel, 19 yrs, Ravindra Kumar, S/o Late Rameshi LaJ Patel, 18 yrs, Naveen Kumar, S/o Late Rameshi Lal Patel, 11 yrs, Res. No. 4 Minor Through her mother and natural guardian Smt. Chandrika Bai Res. No. 1 to 4 R/o Village Uraikachar, P.S. &.Tahsil Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Registered Office 303-304 Lalganga Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) MEMO OF APPEAL U/S 173 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT -A^- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BIIA3PIXR DB: Hon'ble I. M. QUDDU8I & Hoa'ble O. MIMHAJUDDCT, JJ M.AtCl. No.334/2009 APPELLANT: RBSPONDENTS: Bharaflal aad aaother Vs. Chaadnka Bal and others ^] MISC. APPEAI. imDBR SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VBHICLBS ACT. 1988 Appearaace: Mr. Kesav Dewaagan, counsel for thc appeUaats. Mr. Avinash Mishra, counsel for respondents 1 to 4. Mr. Saurabh Sharma, counsel for respoadent No.5. OROJL<MU>ER ^7.06.2011) Per I.M. QUDDUSI. J. 1. Tlus appeal has been fited by the owiier and driver agamst the impiigued award dated 28th November, 2008 passed by the II Additioaal Motor Acadent Claims Tribunal (FTC), MungeU, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G) in Claim Case No. 12/2008 in so far as it relates to unposu^i liabilily upon the owner ofthe veluclc to pay coinpensation. 2. CTOSS objections Jtiave also beea filed by thc claimants for enhanccinent ofthe coinpensatioa. 3. Brief facts of fhe casc as pcr fhe version of claimants are fhat on 01.06.2008 at about 8.00 a.m. deceased Rameshflal was coiuing on fix>t &OJD. the field. At that tiine, AppeUant , no.l who waa driviag Tractor-Trolley bearing Regn. No. C.G. 10-D/2885 & C.G.10-D/2886 in a rash and negligent, !&^v '•w»^.^ maaner has tumed fhe vehicle over fhe deceased who was crushed uadcr the TroUey due to which he sustained serious utjunes and (Ued on the spot At fhe tiiac of accident, fhe deceased was aged about 42 years. He was runrung a groceiy aad gencral store ia vitlage Urai Kachhar and was eaming Rs.250-300/- per day. The clauna<ts being dependente/legal represeatatives havc ffled claim petition u/s 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act for the award of total coinpensation ofRs.23,00,000/-on various heads. 4. Lcaraed CIauas Tribiuial having regaid to the facts situatmn has awarded a total coinpensation of Rs.3,77,500/- which fhe clauaaats are entitkd to receive fi?oia fhe owner/appeUaat no.2 herein. 5. We have heard learaed counsel for the parties aad tiave also gone ttuough the records ofthe Tribunal. 6. It appears that fhe driviag licence seized by the Police was iu respect of Bharatlal, but fhe Tribunal in its finding Uas held fhat the ofifendmg vehicle was driven by his son Lonaesh Patel and not Bharatlal. Leamed counsel submits that on fhe basis of hear-say, fhe FIR was lodged agaiast Loinesh > Patel but later on, offence was registered agaiast Bharatlal u/ss 304-A & 337 IPC. There was no invest^ation to ascertam fhe fact tfaat whefher at the timc of accident, the deceased was sittmg ia the troUey of fhe Tractor or he was a pedcstrian. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has not perused the police record aad has not conducted proper enquity to ascertain fhe trutti as envisaged ia Rule 226 of ' C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 which provides that the Claims Tribuaal shaU obtam. whatever information aad documents which may be foiind nccessaiy fiom the poMce, medical aad other authorities aad proceed to award the claun whether the parties who were given noticc, appcar or not, ou the appoiated date. Furfher we caanot ^nore fhe provisions of section 168 of thc Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides fhat on receipt of an application for conipensation made u/s 166, the Claims Tnbtuaal shaU after giving the parties (includiag the iasurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold aa inquuy into the clairu aad subject to fhe provisions of section 162 may inake au award deterBiming the amount ofcoinpensation which appears to it to be just 7. Further, ia the case of Jtcj^ Kumar -os- AS»y Kuniar and eauither decided oa 18th October, 2010 aad reported ia IV (2010) AccUhsnt Ss Compensatton Cftses 815 (S<y, Hon'bk the Apex Court held fhat the claim petition should not bc treated as a cwil suit and it is fhe duty of thc Tnbunal to conduct an enquiry to ascertain the truth. In para 11 of the said case, it has been held fhat Sections 168 and 169 of fhe Act iiiake it evident fhat fhe Tribunal does not function. as a . ueutral umpire as ia a civU siut, but as an active explorer aud seeker of trufh who is required to 'hold an inquuy into fhe claiTn' for determiniag fhc 'just coinpensation'. The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertaia ffae true and correct position so fhat it can assess the 'just compensation'. 8. In view of the above, we are of the opmion that fhc matter ' requires reconsideration at the end of the Tnbunal. Hence, we allow tbis appeal in. part and remit the luatter back to the, ^SH Tribunal for decision afcsh ia fhe Ught of thc observations inade hereinabove. 9. Needless to mention that the parties shaU be aUowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence, file documents or get the dociunents verified ete., and fhen aflter conducting enquuy aad suiiuaoning fhe poMce record the Tnbzinal shaB take the decMion afiesh. The parties shall appear before the Tribuual on 27*h Julv, 2011. The records of the Tribunal shatl be sent back forthwith. 10. Siace the inatter is reinitted back, fhe cross objections filed by fhe Claiinaats caunot be decided by this Court and the same staad disposed ofwifh the above observations. 11. The ainount which has ahcady becn deposited by the appeUaat shaU remain ia fixed deposit tUl fi?esh decision is taken by fhe Tribunal. 12. In fhe result, fhe appeal is aUowed in. parfc No order as to costs. Rao SA'- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G.Mmhajuddin Judge