cg” @ykim 33x IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: CHH TTISGARH MISCL‘ APPEAL NO. [/5 l OF 2005 APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173/OF MOTOR / VEHICLES ACT, 1988 A eal valued at Rs. 4 44 000 Ru ees Four Lacs Fort Four Thousand) Only APPELLANT The New India Assurance NON-APPLICANT NO.3 Co. Ltd., Branch Office, f Jaipur Road, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG) through its Divisional Manager, Bilaspur Divisionai Office Oppo. Rajeev Plaza, Near Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G) VERSUS RESPONDENT No. 1 Santosh Prasad, / APPLICANT }S/o Late Manaer Prasad, aged about 24 years, Caste — Teli, R/o Geedam Near Nayapara High 'School, P.0. Geedam, Tehsil & Distt. Dantewada (Chhattisgarh) w ' RESPONDENT N APPLICANT NO. N0. 2 1 L/f aged Heeraial, about S/o 29 Manbodh, years, NO r (Vehicle Owner) RESPONDENT No. 3 Ammuram, s70 Siyaram NON—APPLICANT NO. 2 ? aged (Vehicle about Driver) 55 years, (Resp’bndent No. 2 & 3 R/o Geedam P.S. Geedam, Distt. Dantewada (Chhattisgarh) / Being aggrieved by the award dated 30.08.2005Kpassed by the Addl. / Motor Accident / Claims-Tynalf , __ ' ' South / Bast/an ./ Dantewada in Claim Case No. 141/04 (between the parties « ’. 3 .7 > if; V‘s, rW—‘vtx / / {i W HIGH GQURT 9F Q‘HHATEGARH. §JL$§PUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri l.M.Quddusi,J.& Hon’hle Shri Prashant Kumgr Mishra, J, ‘ MA No. 1321 of 2005 AEPELLANI The New lndia Assurance Co. Ltd;. i Versus RESPONDENTs Santbsh Prasad and others. Shri Dashrath Gupm. counsel for the appellant. ‘* Shri Santosh Bharat, counsel for respondent No. 1. ORAL ORDER ( 1 1IO4I201 1 ) a Following oral order of the Court was (passed by Ull- Qndduei, J- This appeal has been filed by the New lndia Assurance Company Limitedlappellant against the impugned award dated 30/08I2005w0f the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 141’2004. (2) Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the claim pehtton are that on 23/12/2003 claimant Santosh Prasad wasgoing from Geedam to Bijapur/in Jeep bearing registration No. C.G. 18I_Z.D. 0351 belongingtonon—applioant No.2. .Due to rash and negligent driving of jeep. by non-applicant No.1ldriver on the way near Harampara the jeep turned turtleas a result at which Santosh Prasad received grievous iniuries and his left ‘thigh bone was also fractured. For treatment he was admiued in Maharani Hospital. Jagdalpur for about one month and a steel rod has been inserted in his leh leg by operation. Before accident he used to eam Rs. 4000I- per month by selling plastic bags and grocery goods in weekly market. Claimant has claimed compensation of és7,00,000/- and, leamed claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4.44.000I-. ”faww f- W \ . (3) Leamed counse! for the appellamllnsutance Company has argued that the amount of compensation oxed by the Tnbunal Is excessive In mew of the fact that the doctor who has issued the dlsabihty oemticate has not been examined and thus the certificate has not been proved. 0n the other q hand. learned counse! appearing for respondent lNo.1/claimant has supported the award. (4) We have seen the record of the Claims Tribunal and have found that the doctor who issued the disability certihcate has not been examined though the certificate is available in the record. (5) In the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another reported in 2010 (12) Scale the Hon‘ble Apex Court has held in paragraph 11 as under :- “11. The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their ‘ effect. in particular the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that die Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil shit, but as an. active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to ‘hold an enquiry into the claim' for determining the ‘iust oompensation’. The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the ‘iust compensation'. The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the ‘just compensation'." (6) In view of the’law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter ‘ of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another (supra), it is the duty of the Claims Tribunal t6“summon the doctor who has issued the disability certificate so that just. proper and fair compensation to which the claimant is entitled is considered and adjudicated. ; 03L \(p (7,) In view of the above, we allow this appeal in part, seaside the imp‘ugned award and remit the matter back to the Tribunai to decide the claim petition afresh aRer conducting proper enquiry. (8); Needless to mention that the patties shall be allowed toamend the '~ pleadings, adduoe further evidence, tile documents or to get the i dooumen$ verihed etc. and thereafter claim petition shall be decided on merits afresh. (9) ‘ ‘The parties shall appear beforethe Tribunai on 22nd June.,201 1,. ' (1 0) Lower Court Record be sent back without further delay a «vex ff: \\)g/ g Sd/- , 1’ ' r sw— I'M'Quddusi ‘ i Prashant Kumer Mishra Judge Judge