v <v feC&^^^Si>££>-—--J-— ^) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASFUR , CHHATTISGARH ^40 M.A.(C).NO. OF 2006 APPELLANT: Tejmati W4/of Chai^-am alias Dandar (Clainiant) Dhanvar, Occupation-dependant ,R/o Village-Kouhakunda^P.SjChakradharNagar TehsU 85 Distt. Raigarh (C.G). VERSUS RESPONDENTS^ 1. Dukhiya Minz« S/o Gunju Minz aged about 40 yers , Occupation-Driver R/o- Rajgangapur , Distt Sundergarh (Orissa) Presently Resident of-Village, Chiraipani, Post-Gervani^TehsU 85 Distt-Raigarh (C.G). R4iy^ ^''?PfNV ^ 2. Kishori Agrawal S/o Late Ramchandra / ^- / AgrawaLaged about 45 years, Occupation- Business (Owner of the Offending Vehicle) R/o Station Road, Near Ganj , Raigarh Tehsil and Distt.-Raigarh (C.G). 3. Chaitrain S/o Sadhuram Dhanvar^ aged- 60 yearsy Occupation - Cultivation R/o Village - Balbhadrapur , TehsU - &Distt. Raigarh (C.G). APPEAL UNDER SECTIQN 1730FJTHE^ MOTOR ^/ ^v Vs VfeHICLE ACT, 1988 HI^I COUKT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIUSPUR DIVISIONBENCH: HGN'BLE MR. I.M.QU&&USI B HONSBLE MR. PRASHANT KUM^R MISHRA. JJ. Appellant Ciairnant Respondents M.A. fcl No.460/2006 Tejmati Vs Dukhiya Minz & others Mr. K.N; NQnde, Advocate for the appeJlant. AAr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for TJne respondents No,i & 2. None for the respondent No,3. ORDER(Orar) (2^th March, 2011) I.M. Qucidusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. By way of this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehjcles Act, 1988 (for short 'ltie Acf), the appellant-claimant has impugned 1+ie oward dated 02.08-2006 passed by the learnsd 3rd AdditionaJ Motor ^ccident CJaims Tribunal, ftaigarh (C&) (for shoirt srtie Claims Trjbunar) in Claim Qxse No43/2002 dismjssjng claim application 6f the ciQimant, 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on ll,7.20QO when the deceased Budhuram Dhanwar was going to yillage ^airwGni from Village Lakha on his bscycie, at that time a truck bearing registration number MP26/8128, driven jn rash and negligent manner by jts driver, dashed' Budhuram as a result he came under the truck and died on 1tse spot, The claimant/ who Js unfortunate mother of the deceased / has filed the clajm application before the Claims Tnbunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs,8,56,000/-a on the ground that she was dependent on the deceased, who was sote earnjng member in the family.ond due to his death.she has suffered loss of income, 4 On the plecdinQS of the parties, the CJaims Tribunal has framed a^ five issues and after hearing the partjes and considerjng mQteriaJ available on record dismissed^he daim application on 1+ie ground that the clajmant failed to prove her daim. ^\ 5, We have heard learned coun^l for the parties and perused the records of the TribunaJ as also the findings given in the impugned award, 6. We have been informed that fatherof the deceased namely Chaitram, who was also a part/ to the claim applicatjon ftled by 1tie appellant herein, had a!so filed a separate ciaim applicatjon ^eking compensation. Therefore, if the eyidence was not led by 1tie claimant despite opportunity was given to her, respondent Chaitramshould have been giyen an opportunity to lead ^ evidence as the claimant and ^iid ChaitrQm both have common interest in the matter i,e. to get the compensation< Z Furltier.the CJaimsTribunal should not have treated the claim petition as a civil syit as it is the duty of the CJaims TribunGi to conduct an enquiry to find out the truth as provided under Section 168 of the ActandRule 226 of the Motor Vehicles ftules and for this view we are supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in tiie matter of Rajkumar Vs. ^.jay Kumar & csnother reported in 2010 (12) SC^LE wherein in Para-11 1+ie Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: - 511, The Tribunal should not be a silent speGtator when medical eyidence is tendered in regard to 1+ie injuries and their effect, in particular the extenf^of permonent disabHit^. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a ciyil suit, but as an active explor^r and ^ker of truth who is requir^d to hold an enquiry into the claim' for determininq the 'just cbmpen^tion^ The Tribunal should therefore take an ac+ive roie to ascertain the true and correcT position so that it can assess The 'just compensation\ While deQling with personal injury cases/the Tribunal should preferabiy equip it;^lf with a Medical Dictionary and'a MQndbook for evaluation of permanent physical impajrment (for example the Manud for Evaluation of Permancnt Phy^ical ImpaErment for Orthopedic Surgeons, prepared by American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons or its Indianequivaient or other authorized texts) for understanding the medical evidence <^sd assessin9 the physical and functional disability, The Tribunalmay also keep in yiew the first schedule to the Workmen's CompensQtion ^ct, 1923 which gives some jndication about the extent of permcuient disabiSity in different types of jnjuries, in the case of workmen, If a boctor giving evidence uses technical inedical terms/ the Tribunai should instruct him^to state in addition/ in simple non-mediail terms, the nature and l4ie effect of 1+ie injury\ If a doctor gives ^•- evid'ence about 1+ie percentage of permanent disability, the Tribunal has to seek cjarification as to whe1+ier such percentage of disabjlity is the functjonal djsability with reference to the whoie body or whether it is only with reference to a limb. If the percentage of permanent di^ibiHty is stated with reference to a iimb, the Tribunal will have to seek the doctor's opinion as to whether it is possibie to deduce the ccrrespondlng functionai permc^ient disabitjty with reference to the whole body and if so 1tie percentage/3' 8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion itiat 1+ie matter "'-^' ^ requires reconsideration at the end of the Claims Tribunal. 9. AccordingJy, the appeal is allowed, the impugned award' is hereby setaside and the matter is remitted back to the Claims Tribunal concerned with a direction to decide the claim application afreshafter providing opportunity to the pcrties to adduce further evidence; if any, amend the pleadings, file documents or verify the documents dready fiied. It is made clear that if the claim applicaTion filed by Chaitram, foither of the deceased, is stili pending/then the claim applications filed by the present Gppellantand the said Chaitram shali be decided togeltier, In case, the appJication filed by Chaitram is disposed of and no compen^xtion is awarded in 'rtiatappljcation, then the claim application filed by the present appeifant shall be decjded afresh, 10,It is necessary to mention here that while deciding the claim appiication f afresh the Claims TribunaJ shall foliow the provisions of Section 168 of the Act, 1988 and' ftule 226 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. 11. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above< No order as to costs, 12. Certified copy as per ru1es, Koshan/- Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd//- prashantKumarMishra Judge