IN THE HIGH COURT OF^HHATnSGARH AT BILASPUA M.A(fNo. 1 ^1 1 {o /2007 g IM.S ©S1GS1 APPELLANT/ NON-APPLICANT RESPONDENTS Vinod Kumar, S/o. S.N. Agrawal, aged about 40 Years, Occupation- Business, R/o. Tirupati Road Carrier Dheemarapur Chowk, Raigarh, District-Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Md. Idrish Ali, S/o. A. Haque, aged about NON-APPLICANT y 27 years, R/o. Aarimara Bahalpur, P.S. Sapur, District- Dhruwari (Asam) RESPONDENT/ APPLICANT 2. Dhanbai, W/o. Shri Dilip Kumar, aged about 38 years, R/o. Village Chaurabhata, Tehsil - Navagarh, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) RESPONDENTS/ 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, NONAPPLICANT ^—Through Divisional Manager, Block Office Sunday Market, Raigarh, District ^ ^ Raigarh (C.G.) • \^?>* ^- ^9f c^ 4. Bhagatram, S/o. Shri Rambharosh /?%y" <-y cg':'\/.\ ' Chaurabhata, P.S. Sheorinarayan, Tehsil- Kashyap, aged about 40 years, R/o. Chaurabhata, P.S. Sheorinarayan, Tehsil- Navagarh, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ".^- f£f ^L 5. Vyas Narayan, S/o. Shri Sahukar Kashyap, aged about 40 years, R/o. Budena, P.S. Janjgir, Tehsil Navagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) MISCEULANEOUS APPEAL UNDBR SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 -LA^CLQT^ A T T 7-A T T TTTTt A r^ T^-, -f ^ C^ ^f\f\f £U-lljA 1 '\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA3PUR M.A.iCI N0.1142 OF 2007 APPBLLANT {NON-APPUCANT*, RE3PONDBNTS Vmod Kuuiai' Versus Md. Idi'lsh AU and ofiiers. M.A.(Ci N0. 1415 OF 2007 APPELLANT (NON.APPLICANTS RESPONDBNTS Vlnod Kumar Versus Md. Idfish All aiid others. M.A.iCl N0.804 OF 2007 APPBLLANT (NON-APPLICANTi RESPONDENTS Vinod Kum.ar Versus Md. Idrish AU and others. M.A.iCt N0.805 OF 2007 APPBLLANT (NON.APPLICANTI RESPONDENT3 Vmod Kiimai' Versus Md. Idrish Ali aiid otliers. M.A.tCi N0.806 OF 2007 APPELLANT {NOH-JU'PLICANTt Vuiod KLunar ^ Versus SESPONDENTS : Md. Idl'ish Ali ai-id otl-iers. '-•7Dy. APPBLLANT M.A.fCl N0.1416 OF 2007 Vinod Kumai' RESPONDENTS Versus Md. Idrish AU and ofhers. M.A.iCl N0. 87 OF 2008 APPBLLANT (NON-APPLICANTt RESPONDBNTS Vmod Kumar Vcrsus Md. Idrish Aii and oftier-s. \; Preseat : Slii'l Sm-ul Otwaru & Sl-u'i Sushobl-ut Siiigli, counsel for the appellant (in all appeals). Sliri Somnafh Veriaa, counsel on behaif of respondents/applicants. Sl'u'i Abliishek Sullia, Sl-u'l Ghaiishyam Patel 85 Shri D.L. Dewangan, coiinsel for respondent - Oriental tosiu-aiice Co. Ltd. APPEALS.UNDER SECTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VEHICLES ACT (Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri I.M. Ouddusi & Hon'ble Shri G. Mishaiuddin. JJ.) ORAL ORDER (Passed on 30& day ofjune, 2011) Per I.M. Ouddusi. J. The a&rementioned seven appeals [M.A.(C) Nos. 1142/2007, 1415/2007, 804/2007, 805/2007, 806/2007, 1416/2007 aiiu 87/2008] are bemg dlsposed of -by Uiis comnion order as fhey ai'ise out the sacue accident occui'red on 19.10.2004 by fee oSendhig vel-ucle Dumper beai'mg registi'ation No. C.G.13-ZC/0172 by dasliiiig Tractor Trolley beai-ing registi'ation No .C.G. 11 Z<5/2199 aild C.G. 1 l-ZG/2200. 2. M.A.(C) Nos. 1415/07 & 1416/07 have beeii ffled agaiiist tlie awai-d dated 9-11-2006 passed m Clalm Cases No. 76/05 o& 78/05 respectively aad M.A.(C) Nos. 1142/07, 804/07, 805/07, 806/07 & M.A.(C) No.87/07 have been Gled agauist &e award dated 17-11-2006 passed m Claim Cases No. 51/05, 63/05, 65/05, 64/05 & 52/05 respectlvely, by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaiijgii' (Chhattisgai'h) (for shoit <Che ClauTas Tribmial'). These appeals have been preferred by owner of fhe Truck (Vmod Kumai') beai'ing registiation No. C.G. 13 ZC 0172 (heremafter referred to as the offendirig vehicle^. 3. Brief facts of fhe case, in all fhe appeals, as pfujected by tlie claimaiits ai'e tliat on 19.10.2004 certaiii persons were retm'riuig by Tractor TroUy beai'mg Regii. No. C.G. 11 ZG/2199 ai-id C.G.ll-ZG/2200 to tlieii' vm^e from Chaiidrapui' after Devi Dai'shaii. On Uie way, at about 3.00 a.ui. near Tunarlaga, one Duniper bearliig Regii. No. C.G.13-ZG/0172 (oficndmg vel-ucle), wUch was beiiig driven by Driver Mohd. Idrish m a rash aiid negligent maruier dashed the Tractor Trolley, as a result of which 5 persons sittuig in the Tractor Trolley sustaiaed liijiiries and died and certaln ofhers have received injuries. \, 4. The claimaiits bemg dependents/legal -t'epresentatives of the I'espective deceased persons as also the injured dalmants flled- separate claim petitlons u/'s 166 of tl-ie Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seekmg compensation. 5. The leai'ned Clalms Tribunal, on a close scruthiy of -evidence adduced, material available on record aiid submlssions. made by fhe pailies has helu tliat Uiere was breach of cpnditipns of fhe insm'ance policy aiid fhere was 1 % \, no coiitributoxy negligence on tiie pai't of Driver aiiu owner of Uie Tractor TroUey. 6. We liave perused fhe records of fhe Clakus Triburial as well as the impugned awards and found fhat fhe UabiUty to pay compensatlon has been fastened upon tlie owner of tiie DLimper beai'lng reglsti'ation No. C.G. 13 ZC 0172, namely Viiiod Kumai' on tlie gi'ouiid that oiily Xerox copy of fhe drivmg Ucence of the driver was filed, wliich caruiot be believed. But ti.ie fact 1s tliat fl-ie deceased/mjured pei'sons were travelmg in flie trolley attached witii tlie Tractor bearmg registi'ation No. C.G. II/ ZG 2199 aiid Trolley bearmg registi'atlon No. C.G.ll/ ZG 2200. There was no seating capacily ui tlie U'olley. The Tractor was also insm'ed for ^i'icultm-al piu'poses, but the deceased and other persons sitting in the troUey were usuig fhe same for traveUng piirposes at the relevant tmie and gomg for Devi Darshaii to ChandrapLU' and as such, tlie Tractor was not bemg used foj.* agi'icultm'al purposes. 7. It is also to be notlced that the Itisurance Conipany has not produced any evideiice to show fliat tiie Xei-ox copy of Uie drivuig Ucence placed on record was not of a . geiiuiiie license or tlie driver of the oflendmg veliicle was not issued a valid aiid effectlve driving licexice and tliei-efore, at the tkue of accident, he was not havitig a valid aiid efiective drivmg Ucence to diive fhe offending veliicle. 8. Therefore, m Aese circiimstaiices, tl'ie question is as to how tlie owxier of the offendhig Truck is responslble to pay tlie amoi.uit of compensation? Fm-Uier, it is also a ,question to determine whefher fhe Insurance Company is also responsible to pay corupensation 111 such circumstailcfis? 9. Therefore, we are of fhe opuiion tiiat fhe mattera requlre reconsideration at fhe end of fhe Tribuiial as no issue ia fhe above regard was framed by fhe Clakas Tribunal and there is no fuiduig about tlie same. ^ 10. Iu vlew of flie above, we allow tliese appeals, filed by fhe owner nainely Vuiod Kumar, la part aiid set aslde the impugned awards aiid remit the matters back to the Tribunal for decision afresh. It wUl be open for Qie Clalms Tribunal to re-assess fhe quantum of compensation afresh after framlng issues ui fhe Uglit of observations made above and recording its fuiduig tliereon. AU the claim petitions sliall be consolldated aiid decided afi-esh. 11. Needless to mentlon fhat fhe parties sliaU be pix)vided opportunity to amend the pleadlngs, adduce fui'ther evidence, file documents or get the documents veriGed ete., on fhe basis of fhe pleadings already on record. Thereafter, fhe enquu'y, if necessaiy, shall be conducted by the Claluis Trlbunal as provided in Sections 168 & 169 of fl-ie Act, 1988 ai-id Riile 226 of tiie C.G. Motor Vel-ucle Rules, 1994. 12. Tlic Tribuiial shaU also take iiito consideration fee principles of law laid down by fhe Hoii'ble Apex Coujft m pai-a 11 of ils deuisioii ui tlie uiaLter of Rcijkum.ar vs. AJay Kunwr S»cuwtherf reported iii 2010 (12) SCALE, wlucli is quoted as uj.ider: "................................Sections 168 ai-id 169 of the Act make it evldent tiiat flie Tribmial does not fui'iction as a neutt'al uiapii'e as in a civU suit, but as an active explorer aiid seeker of ti'utli who is requu-ed to liold aii enquiiy mto tiie claka' for deteruilauig flie 3ust compensation'. The Trlbuiial should tliei'efore take aii active role rY- "- : 1 to ascertain fhe true and correct position so that it can assess fhe 'just compensation........' 13. The amomit ali-eady deposlted by Uie uisurai-ice Company slisdl remaln in deposit tiU. fhe decision afresh is taken by the Claims Tribunal. 14. The partles shall appear before the Clauns Tribunal ou 28-07-2011. 15. Record ofthe Clauas Trlbuaal sliall be seut back wlthout farfher delay. 16. No order as to costs, Kw Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G.Minhajjudin Judge \: \-.