\,\^v( IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (C) No. 3^ /2007. p<Na»N».! APPELLANTS APPLICANTS ? .«' 4% -w ^ : 1. Anil Kumar, S/o. Ras Bihari Mishra, aged about 45 years, 2. Deepak Kumar Mitra, S/o. Anil Kumar, aged about 21 years, 3. Sangeeta Mitra, D/o. Anil Kumar Mitra, aged about 19 years, 4. Sarita D/o. Anil Kumar Mitra, aged about 13 years, Minor through legal Guardian Anil Kumar Appellant no. 1 All R/o. Village - Shivpuri, Jamul Bhilai, District Durg, (C. G.) ^ VERSUS RESPONDENTS : ^ 1, (NON-APPLICANTS) > '\ Dusyant Thakur, S/o. Shri Chintaram Thakur, aged about 34 years, Village Sankar, P. S. Gunderdehi, Distt. Durg (C. G.) Present Address House No. C-87 New Police Line Durg, Distt. Durg (C. G.) Driver Jadish Singh, S/o. Darsan Singh, aged about 52 years, R/o. Guru Nanak Nagar, Telibandha, Distt. Raipur, (C. G.) Owner New India Insurance Company Ltd. Bajrang Market, Raipur, (C. G.)(Policy No. 458388/31/81/37848) Limitation 20.05.02 to 19.03.03 Insurer MEMO OF APPEAL U/S. 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. (Q No. 308 of 2007 Appellants Anil Kumar & others Versus Respondents Dusyant Thakur & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I. M. Quddusi 8& Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocate for the appellants/claimants. Shri N. S. Dhurandhar, Advocate for the respondent No.l. None for the respondent No.2. Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 13th day ofApril, 2011) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. ^ This appeal has been flled by the appellants/claimants against the impugned award dated 8.1.2007 passed by the 10th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg, in Claim Case No. 120/2005, dismissing the claim petition. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the papers available on record. The, brief facts, in nutshell, as projected by the claimants, are that on 15.7.2002 claimant No.l Anil Kumar was .going from Nehru Nagar to his home Shivpuri Jamul on his T.V.S. Champ, bearing registration No. C.G. 07 ZF/2143 along with his wife deceased Shobha Rani. On the way at Kosanala G.E, Road due to rash and negligent driving by the non-applicant No. 1 (Dusyant Thakur) the Truck, bearing registration No. C.G.05/6531 hit the vehicle ofAnil Kumar from the back side. Due to this accident both the riders fell down from the T.V.S. Champ and one wheel of the truck ran over the body of deceased.Shobha Rani, resulting in her death. '\ . ^ 8. The offence against the driver was registered in the Police Station Supela at Crime No. 422/2002 under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The claimants being legal heirs (husband and children) of the deceased Shobha Rani filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 18,15,OOO/- under various heads. The claim petition has been dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that there is no proof regarding the accident with the Truck, bearing registration No. C.G.05/6531 as in the report in the hospital the deceased/husband has stated about the unknown bus and later on the F.I.R. against the unknown bus was recorded but i-n the deposition before the Tribunal he has denied regarding the same and stated that the accident was occurred by a red coloured truck. However, in our view the matter should have been based on the police investigation, the Tribunal should have summoned the police recordp and should have considered the same. The driver of the Truck, bearing registration No. C.G.05/6531 came in the witness box and has admitted that the police case was registered against him for rashly and negligently driving and for the death of deceased Shobha Rani due to the accident in question. The Tribunal should not have treated the claim petition as a civil suit as it is the duty of the Tribunal to conduct an enquiry as provided in the statutory provisions of law i.e. 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of the M.P./C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar 8& another { 2010 (12) SCALE} in para 11 has held that UThe Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries andtheir effect, inparticular the extent ofpermanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 ofthe Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker oftruth who is required to (hold an enquiry into the claimf for determinytg the (just compensation\ The Tribunal should /T' therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the 'just compensation\w 9. In view of the aforementioned statutory provisions of law and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar (supra) it is evident that the parliament has enacted benevolent provisions of law in the interest of the persons who received bodily injuries or in the interest of the legal heirs of the persons who sustained death in motor accident cases. Having regard to the facts and situation and the benevolent provisions of law we are of the considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal should not have dismissed the claim petition without properly making an enquiry to ascertain the veracity of the accident and the vehicle involved in the accident, as obser^ed above. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Tribunal and therefore we set aside the impugned award and remit back the matter for decision afresh. The claim petition shall be restored and the Tribunal should conduct an enquiry to ascertain the veracity of the accident and the vehicle involved in the accident and thereafter shall decide the claim petition afresh. 10. For the reasons stated herein above, we allow this appeal in part, set-aside the impugned award dated 8.1.2007 and remit back the matter to the Tribunal for decision afresh. No order as to costs. 11. - Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce further evidence again in -support of their pleadings and may file further documents and get the documents verified etc. Thereafter, the decision shall be made by the Tribunal on merits. 12. Parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 10th May, 2011. 13. The lower Courts record shall be sent back forthwith. ,; Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Thakur