IN THE J/APPELLANTS VERSUS 25* RESPONDENTS x 1. Maha‘vir Yada§ ENHANCEMENT VALUED AT RS. 37,10,500l - . o V} @EWM gm? HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No4él2006 9% &8 [Appeal u/s 173 M.V. Act, 19881 Mohan Lal Sahu S/o Late Sukhlal Age : 50 years R/o G01 Bazar, Telipara Raipur (C.G.) 2. Smt. Lata Sahu W/o Shri Mohan Lal Age : 45 Yrs. R/o G01 Bazar, Telipara Raipur (C.G.) S/ o Jethuram Yadav Age z 35 years R/o Gogaon, Tah. 85 Distt. Raipur Smt. Mahadevi Modi W/o Shri Suresh Kumar Modi Age 50 Yrs Through Gwahor — Delhl Roadways Bhanpurl Ra1pur , The New Indla Insurance Co Ltd 9’3 D1v1s1ona1 Offlce The D1v1s1ona1 Manager Ilnd Floor, R.D.A. Building Bajarang Market G.E. Road, Raipur \a/ APPEAL UIS 173 MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 FOR ,V‘hw ‘1!“ ' 9" HEGH GOURT OF CHHAT'HSGARH. a1LA$PUR CORAM: Hcn’bleShii I.M.Quddusi,J,& ‘ Hon’bie Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. MA. No. 41 g of 2806 APPELLANTS Mohan La! Sahu and another, Versu$ RESPQNDENTS Mahavir Yadav and othem. Shri Amiyakam Tiwari. CGLmSeI for the a9peli§f3t$ ORAL CRDER ( 071’03I2a1 1) Fouowing era! order of the :j Court was passed by L M Quddus§, J. 1, Ust i$ being revised. Ca$e caned out. Learned caunge! for the' appeuans is pre$ent, but no one is pre3ent for the respondents. 2. Thie appea! has been med by the claimants/appelrante against the impugned award dated 31/01f2006 passed by iii Additionai Meter Accident Claims Tribunai, Raipur, (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 90f2004, dismiseing the claim of the appeilants. 3. The brief facts ef the case as narrated in the ciaim petitien are that on 07/10/2003 deceased sumit Sahu aieng with one Kaushai from his factery situated at Mova went to Anmet Dhaba near Zero Point for taking meats. When they were returning baek to Mova in Yamaha Motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. O4 ZH/0431 then truck bearing registration No. C.G. O4 ZC/0327 being driven rashty and negligently by non-applicant No.1 dashed the motorcycte from behind as a result of which he received injuries and he died in Sandeep Dave Hospital. Deceased was aged about 25 years. He used to earn Rs. 25,000r- per month by doing the business of wheat flour, maida. suji etc. in Sumit Trading Company. The claimants have claimed total compensation of Rs. 37,10,590/-. 4. Near the mace of accident there is a Dhaba in the name of Sunni Dhaba. it's owner Gun‘eet Singh appeared in the witness box and stated that the truck coliided with the metorcycie from behind, He had stated the number of truck ateo as C.G. 04 ZC 0327. He is an independent eye witness. However, in the cross examination he has stated that he reaehed at the spot after the accident en hearing the noise, but the stairns Tribune! has drawn the inference that he was net the eye witness. It is net necessaiy that the accident shoutd take ptaee in the presence of an eye witness. A person who is reaching at the spot on hearing the noise and seen that the truck coilided the motorcycie ttom behind in such a situation it is but nature! that the truck could take time to escape as he caifs‘etn; proceed further attet the accident with the motorcycte without usind k feVefse geaf. 5. The pinion-rider also must have been an eye witness but if the claimants failed to examine him the Tribune! shouid have summoned him to conduct an enquiry in the manner provided in law. 6. in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another reported in 2910 (12) Scale the Hon’hle Apex court has held in paragraph 11 as under :— *‘2 ,~ / “11. The Tribunai should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their ettect, in particular the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunai 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 position so that it can assess the ‘just compensation". § ‘3- 7. section 166 (1) of the Motor \IehicJes Act,1988 (for shcrt ‘the Act’) provides that an application fer compensation arising out of an ascident of the nature specified in sub-sectien (1) of section 1$5 may be made by the persons mentioned therein and Section 168 provides that on receipt of an application for compensation made under Section 166, the Ciaims Tribunai shaii, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hotd an inquiry into the otaim 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 it to be just and speoifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shat! be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be. 8. Rule 226 of the Motor Vehicle Ruies, 1994 (for short ‘the Rules') provides for obtaining of information and documents necessary for awarding compensation under Section 40. lt specit‘rcatly provides that the Claims Tribunal shall obtain whatever information and documents which may be found necessary from the Poiice, Medical and other authorities and proceed to award the ctaim whether the parties who were given notice, appear or not, on the appointed date, 9. ln View of the above, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the claims Tribunal. 10. The appeal is allowed in part. The impugned award is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for decision afresh. 11. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence, tile documents or to, get the ‘ Ii _a_ documents verified etc. and thereafter decision shal! be taken afresh by the Claims TribunaL 12. Since respondents are not present hereidate of appearance of the parties cannot be given by this Court. However, the appeiiants may' appear before the Ciaims Tribunai on 06‘“_Aorii, 201 1. 13. The Lower Court Record shalt be send back without further deiay. 14. No order as to coets. Sdl- i Sd/- I.M.Quddusi /7 Prashant Knmar Mishra 3 Judge i _, Judge i