INTHEaQN'BLEHIQHCQURTOF'CHHATFISGARHAT BILASPURfC.G.) - . Mp^ tNQ^^:SSe^o9^B.)^ APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS 1. 2. 3. ^..^^'. ^'.^;^ ^/i':^M:/^' ^y:£^ '• /'.vs:- .••?''' ^^>/Qr w Miss Neeh-i D/b. Janak Sirigh aged about 13 years, Miss Reetu Singh D/o. Janak Singh aged about 8'years, Smt. Bati BaiW/o. Late Adhar Singh aged about 55 years, AppeUants 'No.l & 2 through Appellanit,jiQ^.;Smt.^BatiBai.(G^ Moffier) ^ are^^sidencejic^ Khongasara Via harratola Chowki Belgahana P.S. Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) :VERSU&:j:; :;.;.:.•¥/.. ..'--el:,dli..!- .^:^ : RESPONDENTS : NON-CLAIMANTS Janak Singh S/o.Adhar Singh, Residence of yUlage Khonga.sara ^•(:EI:a":h-a!';vE''a:Q:i:i;.g^3.t...l;%an..y i^ov^KBi^gahaBasPtSfe.Ko'ia^OistBict ;I^B'is;Fj^^y^ffe;^^H®ig^j.;i2^1iy'i^ 'Bilaspyr^G-G^ ^•:'/',;..'l1 .^.-:;®;':--,1,.;.;1 Bharat Singh Rajput, Residence of Pendra Road P.S. Pendra road District Bilaspur (C.G.) ~ ' TheiOrifintalIrisuranceCo.Ltd. Through Divisional Manger, Division offiee Opposite Rajeev Plaza Near Bus Stand Bilaspur (C.G.) ]\ MQ6l?APPEAL^N@E^§igCl[I0irai^®)i"C)iRiTH '^:VEfflGISS%C^:tf&8»';-::':^;:';..'^'^"^^^^^^^^ ^ HI6H COURT OF MHATriSQAW AT BIL^SP y BENCH: HON' £MR. I.,V '«- .iaimants Vi Miss Neelu A ol+sers ranak 5inqh & others iMon-ciaimanTS Mr. f.K.. Sulsiyan, Advocal-e Tor The aDDeJlants. Kw. Vivek Rathore, AdvocaTe for the reSDondents No.l n 2. U " ^•Si*n*4^r)*».'"<i '^•-I's ifli*j,n.^.4'^>»;.nf ^ .•^"^a^u.f'l'-'Si ^-ct ua 44^-a- *n/3ifi?i"i.f^*»i^.-^»p;4-t^la^ '3- i'S\i f ^ri'^Af i'uiii-^-jj ta/i E i iV^*.5iiA¥^^ f~t\< v-'^/^ii^ iS> ) ^ i i) iii* i S'.S^^/i itjiu'i i i i TJ»/tt»i» ItK VJft r-cn. 2. By way of fhis apoeal under Section 173 of ths Motor Vehicfes .4ct. 1988 (for short 'the Act'), the aDpetfants-cJaJmants haye impuqned the award dated 08.11.2010 ps.ssed by the tearned 1 /Aotoi* Accident CIo.ims Tribunai B'lasDur i.Cu) {tor short 'the Claims Iribunal') in Clalm Case No.53/200° dismissina fhe claim aooi'icatjon ot The ctaimants. 1Z.30 -a.m. rom Biiarwaton 3. Facts of 1+i.s case. 'n br.'ef. are that on 8.9.2008 at deceased omf. S.aushaiya Baj was comina bac.k fo Harrotola the rnotorcycle of her husband. She was trayeiina in 1tie said motorcycle as oiil'on rider. Vl/hen Thev reached near 'IAain Road Harratoia. the driver of wotorcycls could not see the cattte sittino on the road and dashed fhe motorcycle wifh them as a result the deceased sustained fatal backside cf her head and became unconscious. She was Mosoita! where arte" oreliminary treotment she was dectared doctors. Report of fhe accident was lodaed in the Polia Ihe claunanTs. t-i'ho are chCdren and mofner-in-law ot The filed a claim application before the Cl'ajms Tribunai seekina of Rs.4,23,500/-. nsupy on to 6oun tmn &aurella. ;eased. have E /I 1 A 4. On the pleadjnqs of the parties, the Claims Tribunal has framed as many as five issues and after hearing the parties and considering the material available on record dismissed The chim aDDIication on the ground that The claimants failed to prove their claim. B. We 'have heard learned counsel for the Darties and oerused the records of the 1 nbunal as a!so the findinas given in the impuqned award. 6. On carefui examination ot the record, we have seen that the accident had tcken DJace on 08.09.2008 at 12.30 a.m. 'in the niaht and repor* of flie accident was Jodged at 1.00 a.m. ^ead body ot the deceased was sent for 1 . - . .^ ...... .•„ .^ l ».l -- .^-. ^ postmortem examination at 14.45 hrs (2.45 p.m.). In the report it was mentioned bv 5mt. Sucheta Bai. mother ot son-m-law and dauahter had aone by motorwcle in the mornino she came To know that her daughter has died. injury on the backside ot her skull. In the appiication examinatior! the Investjqatina Officer has mentioned That the deceased in the died because ot accident with motorcvcle. f-urther. in reporT cause of deafli has been shown as shock (haemorrhage) and coma due to cardio respiratory failureand the death was accidental in nature. 7. VVe have also oerused the statement ot Raikumar RaiDut (AW-3). who was eyewitness of the accident, and did not find any material his statemsnt to The tacts ot the case. first intormation p f"act mentioned in the aDDlication for Dostmortem exami shown in the Dostmortem reoort corroborate the evidence of as weit as first information reDort. It is a!?o to be notice< Sinqh, son ot Aadhar Sinqh, hust?and .ot the deceased, who motorcvcle. identitisd the bodv ot deceased when her body postmortem ex.amination with ConsTabie No.43 KamKuma? Station &aurella, Distr'cT Bilaspur. Even in The report filed by the poiice under Section 173 Cr.P.C after comDletion of the jnvestiaation There is- mention that the deceased died due to rnotor vehlcie accident. 8. Ihe CSaims i nbunal has wronaly rejected the testimonv oT KajKumar KaiDut (AW-3) by mentioning that firstly name of this witness did not find Dlace in as aiso The Inlur'ies this witness that t Tor the list of witnesses submitl-ed by the police wi1ti the charge sheet filed under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., but to our opinion if the potice have not included 1+ie name of this witness in the iist or there is lock of proper investiqation, the clajmants cannot be sufferers for that. In the matter of Ra.ikumer Vs. .4.iay Kumar & another reported in 2010 (t2) SCAl.b the Mon'ble buDreme C-ourt in Kara-Il has held thus:- "11. Ths Tribunal should not be a sitent soectator when medical evidence is tendered in reaard to The iniuries and their effect. m particufar the extent of permanent disability. Sections I6S t**' . 3 . - = — - S • ? and 169 of ttie Act mate it evident that The Tr'ibuna! does not Tund'ion as a neutral umoire as <n a c'v'A suit. &ut as an active expiorer and seeker ot trutti who is reauired to tioid an enquiry into the claim' tor determinina The 'just compensation'. 1 he Tribunal shoutd theretore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct Dosition so that 'T can assess the 'iust compensation. Whiie deaiina with personal in.iury cases, the nbunal shouid preterabiy equip itself with a ilftedica! Dictionary and a MaidbooK for evaluation ot permanent ohysical imDGJrment (tor examDle the lAanuai for t'/atuation of Permanent Khysrcal imDairm-snt tor UrttioDedic Surgeons. orepared by American Academy of Orthopedic 5urqeons or its Indian eauivatent or other authorjzed texts) for understandino the medical evidence and assessing the phvsica! and tunctionai disabilitY. The Tribunal mayaiso keeo in view The first schedule to the Workrnen's Comoensation Act.'1923 which oives some ind'cation about the extent o^oermanent disabilitv in different types ot injuries, in The case ot workmen. If a Doctor givini; evidence uses technica! medicc! terms, The Trjbunsf should instruct him to state in addition. in simDie non-medical terms. the nature and The eftect of The injury. It a doctor qives eyjdence about the percentaqe of permanent disabjlity, The Trjbunoil has to seek clarification as to whel+ier such / percsntage of disabilit/ is the functional disabiiit^ with ./ ^,. ' ' %&^,., ^^- wv ^ reference to the whole body or whether it is only wi-rii reference to a limb. If the percentage of permanent disabilit^ is stated witii reference to a limb, the Tribunal wiil have to seek the doctors opinion as to whether it is possjble to deduce the correspondinq functional Dermanent disability with »ercen 9. ln view ot the above discussion. we are oT the oomion that the matter reauires recons'deration at the end ot the Claims 1 ribuna!. 7.0. AccordinQly, the ocpea! is ailowed, the JmDuqned award is herebv set aside and The matter is remitted back to the Claims Tribunal concer-ned with a direction to decide the claim apDlication afresh after Drovidinq oDDortunit*/ to the part'es to adduce further evicience, it any, amend the pleadinqs, tiie documents or verify the documents already tiied. It is necessary to mention here thgt while decidina the cfaim sDDlication afresh the Claims Tribunal shalt foliow The provisions of 5ection 168 of the Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of The MoTor Vehicles Rules and followina the sarne shall conduct a Droper enauiry as ctaim Detition is not To &e Treated !iKe a civil suit and !t is the dutv of the Claims Tribuna! to conduct an enauirv to find out the truth, as held by the Hon ble Apex Court in Rajkumar s case (supra). 11. The aDDeal is ailowed to the extent jndlcated above. No ordep as to costs. 12. Certified C.OQ'-I' as oer rules. ^•2—^1—-— Sdi- \ I.M.Quddusi Judge i Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge