IN THE HIGH COURT OF CiiHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. ^^" M.A. No. /"17 u /2003. APPELLAWTS C3LABtANTS- / Division Bench . Mst» Gangotri Bai ^d/o Late '~y Mohaa Say :Pallcra, age 36 years ^. C^ste-Ka^-war • ^ 2» Nandkamar Say s/o Late Mcstiansay Pailsra, aged about 19 years^ -^ k ^x^' %I<?' ^y.fr- y's ^ 3^ Ku^ Utoa d/o Late Mohansay Pailcra» aged about 17 years. 4^ Ku^ Padma Say d/o Late Mcdiansay, aged about 13 years^ 5. Ku/ Ehilsmani d/o Late Mohansay Pailcra> aged about 10 years. 6, Handkisfeor say s/o Late Mohansay PaJLkra» aged about 8 years^ No^ 3 to 6 mixior, through their< mother & natural guardian Mst» Oaagotr.l Bai^ Ml r/o village Nushkutl., Tehsil BagichBt Oistt^ <JasMpur» C.G^ V E R S t? S .RESPONDENrs'' ^ ^ ^^' ) 1. sukhrara Korwa s/o Hoharsay Kqrwa» age 40 years» C^ste-Korwa^ r/o village Samarbhadiya, Tehsll Bagicha^ ©istt. Jashpar, C*G< (DRIVER) 2« SSIaivnatii Jayaswal, age 60 years, 5 s/o Ramshankar Prasad Jayaswal, r/o vAllage Bagicha, Tehsil Bagicha, Dlstt* Jashpar, G^G^ (OWEIER) \^^s1' APPEAI. UNDER SBCTI0N 173 OF THE MQT^ VEHICLES AGr* contd^,2 ^ • ~1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH.BILASPUR DB: HON*BLB I.M. QUDDU8I & HON*BLE N.K. AGRAWAL, JJ M.A. No. 490 OP 2003 Vs. MISC. APPBAL U/S 173 OF THB MtyTOR VBHICLB8 ACT APPEARANCB: Mr. Roshaa Verma, counsel for fhe appeUants, Mr. Devendra Patel, counsel for the respoadeats ORDER (ORALt (24.11.2010) PCT LM. OUDDUSI^ 1. Ttds appeal has been fiiled by the Claimaats agaiiist mipugned award dated 07.02.2003 passed by fhe II Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C), Jashpur (C.G) in Claim Case No.6/2002 dismissiag the claim application. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the version of fhe claimaait are fhat on 10.02.1998 at about 4.15 p.m., deceased Mohan Sai Paikra died ia ah accident while he was goiag &om Jhampidarha to Bagicha on a Tractor bearing Regn.No. M.P.27/8622 & TroUy regn.No.M.P.27/8623, which were iavolved in the accident The deceased vyas aged about 40 years, he was a Govt. Teacher and was eammg Rs.6032/- per monfti. The claimants beiag widow and children as also dependents of the deceased, filed claim petition clamung to the ttme of Rs. 15 lakhs on dijfferent heads. / APPBLLANTS Mst. Gangotd Bai aad otihiers RE8PONDBNT8 Sukhram Korwa and anofher ^ 2. The Tribunal has firamed fhe ^sue regaidmg the fact fhat whefher the iacident took place wifh the veliicle ia question and has aaswered tfae said issue m negatiw;. However, we have perused tfae recoids of fhe Tribunal, which shows tiaat in fhe mfonnation which was given on tfae next date ofthe accident, naiae of the owaer of the Tractar in question was mentioned. Furfher it is also a fact fhat he was biought to fhe hospital iaunediatety and fhe inedical oflBcer of the hospital passed over fhe iaformation to the Police about fhe deafti of fhe deceased which was done promptty at about 18.15 hours 031 the date of accident The witaesses were disbeUeved by fhe Trib'unal and on fhat basis fhe claim has been denied. 03. We are of the opiaion fhat the Tribunal has not conducted fhe enquiry properly and it should have summoned tlxe documents fix>xn hospital regardicig fhe fact of bringmg fhe deceased to fhe Hospital, The witaesses have also beeH disbeUeved in a casual maaner. No speci&c findiag has beea given by which aa mferciice could be drawn fhat the vehicle ia question was not iavolved in fhe accident ia wfaieh the deceased IIBS died. 4. The Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 werc jBramed under the Motor Vehicles Act, which have beeii adopted by the State of Chhattisgarh. Rule 226 provMes for obtaiidag of mformatioa axid docuiaents necessaiy for awardiag com.pensatioii under section 40. It elaborately provides fhat fhe CIaims Tnbuaal shall obtaia whatever mformation and documents which ^^ ^.,. '^€ "-l-'.^^y y. may be found necessaiy fi-om fhe police, Medical and ofher aufliorities and proceed to award fhe claim whefher the pardes wlio were given xiQtice, appear or not, on the appoiated date. 08. Sectionl68 further provides fhat oa receipt of aa appUcatfoa for coiBipensation inade under section 166» the Claisas Tribunal shall, after giviag notice of the appUcatioa to fhe iasurer and after giviiig ffae pardes (including fhe iasurer) aa opportunity ofbeing heaid, hold sm iaquiry iato fhe claim or, as the case may be, each of the clmms and, subject to fhie provisions of section 162 may make an award determimiig fhe amoiiat of compensation which appears it to be just aad specifying fhe person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid aad ia making fhe awaid the Claims Tribitaal shaU specify fhe amount which shaU be paid by the insiirer or owner or driver of fhe vehiele iavolved ia ffae accidexit or by aU or aay offhem, as fhe case inay be. 06. Section 140(1) of the Act provides fhat where deaffat or pennaaent disablement of any person has resulted j&iom an accident ansmg ouf of fhe use of a motor vehicte or motor vehicles, fhe owner of flie vehicle shall, or as the case may be, the owners of fhe vehicles shafl joinfly amd severally, be Uable to pay conipensation ia respect of such deafh or disableiaent ia accordaace wifh the provisions of fhis section, 07. In view of the above mentioaed facts and circimistaaees of fhe cose, the Tribunal should have foUowed fhe provisions of Rule 226 aad shouM have summoned tfae recoids froin fhe :::¥ :a:y -^.J PoUce, Medlical aad ofher aufhonties Mke R.T.O, and flien decide fhe claim petition OQ fhe basis of evidenee aMd other rclevaat material on recoid ici accoidance wifh law but fhe Tnbunal has not foUowed the provisions ofRule 226, 08. Considermg fhe totaMty of fhe facte aiad circumstemces, we arc oftihte opinion ffaat the matter requires reCT>asideratkin at fhe end ofTribitaal. Therefore, we allow tfais appeal in part, set aside the impugned awaxd and remit the laatter back to the Tribunal for decision afi^esh at the eariiest The Tribuaal shall provide opportunity to fhe parties to adduce further evidence if aay and shaU conduct an. enquiry and foUow ffae piDvisions of Rule 226 ia deciding fhe elaim petition. However, we may inake it clear fhat we have not glven aiiy jSndiag of fact herc in fhis appeal and fhe Tribunal would decide the maia petition of fhe claimaats independentfy without being mfluenced by fhe remarks made this oxder. The reconls of fhe Tribunal shaU be sent back forthwitii. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N. K.Agarwal Judge Rao