BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL fCl No. 3o /20ii snl^n -?. vre^ APPELLANTS /: CLAIMANTS ^^$3^ ^^^^' '^--i\ RESPONDENTS: NON-APPLICANTS ^ 1. 3ohan LalPatel S/o Late Gawaru Ram Patel, Aged about 55 Years, 2. Smt. Daya Bai Patel W/o Johan Lal Patel, Aged about 53 Years, All R/o Village - Mararkashibahra, Post- Charoda (B,andh), Thana, Tehsil, & District- Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS Asgar 1. Asgar Ansari @ M.D. Ali Ansari S/o Mahmood Ansari, Aged about 22 years, R/o Village- Gurdi, Thana Gadhwa, (Jharkhand), Present Address- Khan Hotal Deepika, Thana Deepika District - Korba (C.G.) (Driver of Truck Vehicles bearing Regd. No. C.G.12-C/1304) 2. AbhilekhVaishnav, S/o Ramsnehi Vaishnav, Aged about 25 years, R/o Village- Budbud, Thana Pali, District- Korba (C.G.) (Registered Owner of Truck Vehides bearing Regd. No. C.G.12/C./1304) 3. The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Shivmohan Bawan Vidhansabha Road- Pandri Raipur, Tehsil & District- Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer of Truck Vehicles bearing Regd. No. C.G.12/C./1304) (Policy' No. C.G. 09/9995/1803/00135473 Valid from 01/01/2009 to 31/12/2009) aa :l9 4. Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Madina Building Jail Road Raipur, Tehsil & District- Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer of Motor Cycle Passion Plus Chesis No. M.B.L.H.A. 10 E.L. 8 G.L. 16535 & Engine No. H.A.10 E.B. 8 G.L. 51717) • APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MQTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi and Hon'ble ShriJystice Prashant Kumar Mishra Appellants Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.90 of 2011 Johan Lal Patel and another versus Respondents Asgar Ansari @ M.D. Ali Asgar Ansari and others Present: Shri Satyendra Sahu, counsel forthe appellants. Shri Dharmesh Srivastava, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri G.V.K. Rao, counsel for respondent No.4. None for other respondents. Miscellaneous Appea 1 u nder Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ORAL ORDER (Passedon 18th April, 2011) Per I.IVI. Quddusi, J.: Heard on I.A.No.1 for condonation of delay of 107 days in fiiing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in I.A.No.1 and also that there is no objection to condonation of delay in filing the appeal by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and respondent No.4, I.A.No.1 is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal is heard finally and disposed of. 4. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the award dated 15-4-2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund in Claim Case No. 157/2009. / /'./ »~1' 5. Case ofthe claimants, as stated in the claim petition, is that on the date of accident, i.e., 28-3-2009, deceased Chandrahas Patel was going R.C.M. Market, Mahasamund on his motor cycle Hero Honda Passion Plus for his business related work. At that time, a truck bearing registration No.CG 12 C 1304, loaded with coal, going from Mahasamund to Bagbahara, being driven by non-claimant No.1 Asgar Ansari alias M.D. Ali Asgar Arlsari rashly and negligently on wrong side, dashed the motor cycle of the deceased ahead of Baroda Chowk in front of Chandrakar Welding Shop, Mahasamund. As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his person. He was being taken to District Hospital, Mahasamund for treatment, but he died on the way. The incident was reported to the Police Station Mahasamund. The claimants, i.e., father and mother of the deceased preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.17,38,000/-. 6 . The Claims Tribunal dismissed the daim of the claimants. 7. On perusal of the record of the Claims Tribunal, we have found in the police papers that the non-claimant No.2/owner of the truck has stated before the police under Section 161 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure that on 27-3-2fl09 his driver, after loading coal in the truck, had taken the truck to Mahasamund and on coming back, the driver informed him that he had caused an accident in Mahasamund, but due to fear, he did not tell about the accident to anyone. Besides this, there are eye-witnesses, namely, Gurubakhsh Singh and Dilip Sahu. Dilip Sahu has been disbelieved by the , >as'iS-1. & • "'Si ,<? •'SEC--'' _i»' ^3y 3 Claims Tribunal without ascertaining the fact whether the accident had taken place with the vehicle in question or not. Disbelieving an eye-witness, in such circumstance, was not proper. Other witnesses, whose statements were recorded by the police, have not been examined and the police papers have also not been summoned by the Claims Tribunal to determine true facts. The Claims Tribunal has not conducted proper enquiry into the claim. 8. It has been provided in Rule 226 of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 that the Claims Tribunal shall obtain whatever information and documents which may be found necessary from the police, medical and other authorities and proceed to award the claim whether the parties who were given notice, appear or not, on the appointed date. Further, we cannot ignore the provisions of Section 168 of the Act, which provides that on receipt of an application for compensation made under Section 166 of the Act, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an enquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of Section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation'which appears to it to be just. However, the Claims Tribunal has not conducted any enquiry in the manner indicated above. 9. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another, 2010 (12) Scate 265, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 1 1 of the report thus (only relevant portion is extracted below): // "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 the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to 'hold an enquiry into the claim' for determining the 'just compensation'. The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct posrtion so that it can assess the 'just compensation'. ...,......" 10. In view of the above, the Claims Tribunal should not have treated the claim petition as a civil suit and should not have dismissed the claim petition in the manner in which it has been dismissed. It was the duty of the Claims Tribunal to conduct a proper enquiry into the claim and find out the truth and the victims should not have been denied their legitimate claim. 11. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Claims Tribunal. 12. Accordingly, we allow the miscellaneous appeal in part, set aside the impugned award and remit the .matter back to the Claims Tribunal for dedsion afresh in the light of the observations made above. Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 11 Mav, 2011. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce further evidence, file documents or get the '<!,•:^.'.: -'f7?K.^':1' documents verified etc. and thereafter award shall be passed afresh. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Gopal