IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C)No.- ^a^ /2011 (D.B.) APPELLANT THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MADINA BUILDING, JAIL ROAD RAIPUR, DISTRICT RAIPUR,(C.G.) Vrs. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS:- :-1. SMT. MEENA BAI W/0 LATE J RAMNARAYAN SAHU, AGE 40 YEARS. 2. MUKESH KUMAR ALIAS BAHADUR S/0 ^ LATE RAMNARAYAN SAHU, AGE 24 YEARS, BOTH RESIDENT- VILLAGE KHUNDANI, THANA GURUR, DISTRICT- DURG (C.G.) RESPONDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS ',.^\9-^ ^^ ^'^' ...< ^ ^c^ 't^^' 3. DEENDAYAK SINHA S/0 PARASRAM ^ SINHA AGE 40 YEARS, RESIDENT VILLAGE-HALDI, THANA ^UNDARDEHI, DISTRICT- DURG (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 ct •^ r l^ •;!1'E HIGH^COUJRT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: APPELLANT: RBSPONDENTS: HON'BLB I. M. QUDDU8I fis HON*BLE G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ M.A(q.No. 436/2011 The Oriental Insiiraace Coiapany Ltd. Vs. Snit. Meena Bai & ofhers MISC. APPBAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VEHICLBS ACT. 1988 Appearance: Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for fhe appellaat. Mr. B. P. Siagh, counsel for respondents 1 & 2. Mr. N. K. Chatterjee, counsel for re|gondent no.3, ORAL ORDBR (18.08.2011) As per I.M. QUDDUSI, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by fhe Insuraace Coiapaay agaiast fhe impugned award dated 23.11,2010 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C), Balod, Disfcrict Durg, ui Claini Case No. 176/2009 so far as it relates to fastening of UabiUty upon it to pay conipensation. 2. Brief facts of fhe case as per fhe version of fhe claiaiaats are fhat on 09.06.2009 deceased Ramnarayaa Sahu was retumiag to his horae by his Motorcycle. On fhe way, at about 9.00 p.in, between village Nagadabri and Tamora one Motorcycle bearing Regn.No, C.G.005-H/1147 which was beiag driven by respondent no.S/Deen Dayal Siaha in a rash and negUgent nianner dashed fhe inotorcycle^offhe deceased from. back side, ^y as a result of which, fhe deceased sustamed grievous mjuries on his head, haad, legs aiid waist. He was adinitted ia Dhaaitari Hospital for 20 days aad thereafter he was referred to Rakesh Dubey Hospital, Raipur where he died on 29.07.2009 during fhe course of treataient. At fhe tune of accident, tihie deceased was aged about 40 years aad was eaarmg Rs.6000/- per nionfh. by doiag pluiaber works, The clamiants beiag dependents/legal representatives have filed claim petition u/s 166 &' 140 ofthe Motor Vehicles ^ Act for fhe award ofa total coiapensation of Rs.23,50,000/- on various heads. Learaed Claims Tribunal has held ^iat the raotorcycle beariag Regn. No. C.G.005-H/1147, which was being driven by respondent no.3, ia a rash aad negUgeut inaaner, dashed the inotorcycle of Raoinarayan froia behind, as a result of which, he sustaiaed iajuries aad died during fhe coiirse of treataient ou 29.7,2009; fhere was no contdbutoiy negUgence aad fhe claimants are entifled to receive a total conipensation of Rs,3,47,000/- froni fhe non-appUcaats joiatly aad severally. It reveals frora fhe penisal of fhe record fhat fhe vehicle of fhe deceased coUided wifh the vehicle of Deen Dayal Siaha aad the deceased Ramnarayan. Sahu sustaiaed serious iajuries on head and ofher parts of fhe body, but after fhe accident deceased Ramjiarayaa was assaxilted by Deen Dayal, Thereafter, fhe deceased was admitted m ffae hospital and died after about 50 days froin the date of accident but fhe treating physiciaa. was not catled axid exainined in fhe witaess box. Therefore, it cotdd 1;1^:- ^. p not be ascertained whefher the deafh of fhe deceased was because of fhe accident due to coUision of fhe two inotorcycles or due to assault inade by Deen Dayal Siaha. 5. In Rule 226 of C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 it has been provided fhat fhe Clamis Tribunal shatl obtam. whatever iafomiation and docunients which niay be found necessary froici fhe poUce, uiedical aad ofher aufhorities aad proceed to award fhe clami whefher the parties who were given notice, appear or not, on fhe appoiated date. Further we caanot ignorc the provisions of section 168 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides that on receipt of aa appUcation for coiapensation inade u/s 166, fhe Claiais Tnbzinal shaU after giviag fhe pardes (iacludiag fhe iasurer) aa opportunity of beiag heard, hold aa. iaquuy iato fhe claim and subject to fhe provisions of section 162 niay m.ake an award detenniaiag fhe araount of conipensatiou which appears to it to be just, Further, ia fhe case of Raj Kunwr -vs- AJay Kunwr and anether decided on 18th October, 2010 aiid reported ia FV (2010) Accldent Ss Compensatlon Cases 815 (SC), Hon'ble the Apex Court held fhat fhe claim petition should not be treated as a civU suit aad it is fhe duty of ftie Tribunal to conduct aa enquiry to ascertaia fhe trufh. 6. In fhe iastant case, fhe Tribunal has not conducted any ^ enquiry to ascertaia fhe above fact. The clahnaats would be entiUed to get the compeiisation u/s 166 offhe Motor Vehicles Act only if fhe accident iavolviag fhe deafh or bodUy iajuiy had adsen out of the use of fhe motor-vehicles as provided m r. '^ '^ ;^ 1 -y 8. 9. section 165 (1) of fhe Act. Therefore, fhe Clauns Tribunal should have called fhe treatmg doctor for his exaoiiaation ia the witaess box to ascertain fhe facte, which has not been done. In fhe above facts aad circumstances, we are of the opiaiou fhat the matter requires reconsideration at fhe end of fhe Tribzinal. Hence, we allow fhis appeal in part aad reinit fh-e miatter back to fhe Tribunal for decision afresh ia fhe light of fhe observations inade hereuiabove. The Tribunal shall frame additional issue as to whefher fhe deafh was caused or bodily iajuries were received by fhe deceased arisiag out of fhe use of niotor vehicle or due to fhe assautt on him after fhe accident took place, Accordiagly issue No. 1 shatl be suitably niodi&ed aad Issue nos.3 & 4 shatl be decided a&esh, It wiU be open for fhe iasuraace Conipaay to inove aa appUcation u/ s 170 of the MVA aad ia case it is nioved, fhe same shatl be decided afresh wifhout beiag iafluenced by fhe earlier appMcation, which has been rejected. Needless to raention fhat the parties shall be aUowed to amend fhe pleadin.gs, adduce fdrfher evidence, file docuinents or get the docuxnents verified etc., and fhereafter, the Tribunal shatl take the decision afresh. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 22nd September, 2004. The rccoids ofthe Tribunal shall be sent back wifhout furfher delay. The aoiount which is ui deposit shaU be kept ia a fixed deposit. However if fhe sanie has been disbursed/ it wUl not be -.>.. "^ :s sl ^.^^"•"' ,^' recovered aad wUl be subject to tiie fresh decision of fhe Tribunal m fhe matter. 10. In fhe result, fhe appeal is allowed ia part. No order as to costs. Rao Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ^-•--