IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL rci N0. <C 96 / 2011 B^ MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION^l73 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT. 1988 APPELLANT INSURER RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTS ^f, /".^. ^c^ ^ / /\^ :s" ^' >-':x^ DRIVER-CUM. OWNER i3- y J' f^.5. /Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through : its Legal Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited 301-302, Corporate House, 169 RNT Marg, Opposite Jhabua Tower, Indore (M.P.) VERSUS Smt. Manhagin Bai Uike W/o Late Sahnuram, aged about 40 years, Deepak Kumar Uike, S/o Late Sahnuram, aged about 19 years, Surendra Kumar Uike, S/o Late Sahnuram, aged about 17 years, Mahendra Singh Uike, S/o Late Sahnuram, aged about 13 years, Respondent No. 3 & 4 being minor represented through mother Smt. Manhagin Bai Uike respondent No.l All by caste - Gond, R/o village - Salhe (Amapara), P.S. & Tahsil - Bhanupratappur, District - North BastarKanker(C.G-) Kirit Patel S/o Gangaram Bhai Patel, aged about 27 years, R/o - Narayanpur (Sonpur Road), P.5., Tahsil & District - Narayanpur. \ ^ J^-JK^-N^JI—-. r ;\ HIOK COURT OF CHKATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. iQ N0. 699 GF 2011 APPBLLANT/ ZNSUHBR RESP023BBNTS Reliaiice Geuieral IiisLU'aiice Company Limited, Versiss Smt. Maiiiiagiii Bal Ulke and others. APPEAL UNDBR SECTIOH 173 OF THE MOTOH VBHICLE^ ACT, 1988 ^ Division Bench: Hon'bie Shri I.M. Ouddusi & Hos?b2e Sfefl G. MtaahaitsddiB, JJ. Presesits Sliri Sourabh Sharma^ counsel for tlie appellaiit. Shri Yogesh Cliandray counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2/clamiaats. •<-ft" ORAL ORDBR (Passed on 29th day of September; 2011| Per I.M. Quddusi, J. List is being revised. Case is called-out. No one is present for tiie driver/owner respondent No.5. Therefore, we proceed ex-pai-te agaiiist liim. 2. On 05-07-2011, notices were issued to tlie respondents on I.A. No.Ol, application for condonatlon of delay iii filuig tiie appeal. As per office report, all tlie respondents have been sei'ved^ However, except leamed couiisel for the respoudents No. l&S/clainiants, no one is present on behalf of otlier respondents. Therefore, learned couiisel for flie appellaiit/L.isiii-aiice Compaiiy aiid learned couiisel for tlie respondents/claimaiits ai'e heai'd on tiie above application. 3. On due consideration of tlie gi-omids mentioned m tlie application^ which is supported by aii affidavSt; we ai'e satisfied that tlie appellaiit has succeeded in explaiaiiig the cause of delay iii flling flie appeal. Therefore; tlie application is aBowed and tiie delay caused m filiiig tlie appeal is hereby condoned. w ,/ 4. In tlie above cii'cumstaiices, leai'ned counsel for flie appellai'it/Insiii'aace Compaiiy and learned coiuisel for tlie respondeuts/claiaiants are heard and we proceed to decide tiie matter at tiie adrnission stage itself- 5, TIiis appeal has been filed agaiast tiie iiiipugiied awaid dated 31-03-2009 passed by tiie Additional Motor- Accident Clalnis Tdbiuial (F.T.C.), Bhanupratappm', Dlsti'ict Nortli Bastai' Kanker (for short <Uie Claims Tribuiial) m Claim Case No. 12/2008, by flie appellant/Insurance Compaiiy decidiiig fhe impugned awai'd ex-pai'te aiid rejectiiig tlie application for settuig aside tiie ex-parte award." 6. Brief facts of tiie case as per version of fhe applicaiits/claimants ai'e tliat on 30-12-2007 at about 11.00 a.m., deceased Salinurain was goiiig fyom Narayaiipur Bans Sliflp Kendra to Kondagaon on Pick-up (Tata) 207/R.X./F.B./ M.8., to attend tlie exhibition along with otliers. On tlie way, tlie said vel'iicle (Pick-up), wliich was being driven by Uie driver Kirlt Patel, m a rash arid negligent maiiiier overtui'ned, as a result of whlch tiie deceased - Salinuram sustauied gi'ievous injuries. He was taken to R.N.T. Hospital, Kondagaon for ti'eatiiient where he was declai'ed as dead. At the tu'ne of accident, the deceased was eai'mng Rs. 12,801/- per monfli as salaiy. 7. The claunants belng legal representatives of the deceased, had filed a petition under Section 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act (for short <the Acf) before the Clakas Tribuiial, claiiiiing a total ainount of compensation of Rs.36,25,016/- for tiie deafli of fhe deceased. 8< Tlie leariied Tribunal on a close scrutmy of evideiice led, material placed aad submissions made by the parties, has awai'ded a sum of Rs. 12,06,4SO/- along with laterest @ 6% pei aiiiiuni from tlie date ofappllcation tUl its payment, iii favoui of tiie appUcants aiid against tiie non-applicaiits. ^'.,^^ '^ Mlte^S^ | ^iygs^s^ y ^.. "^^ "a^ss^^ % 9. We have perused tiie record of the Claims Trlbmial as well as tl-ie impugiied awai'd wrliich shows fliat tlie deceased was traveliiig ia tlie Light Goods Veliicle (LGV). He was workiiig as Teclinical Assistaiit in the Baniboo Project, C.G. Hast Sl-ulp Vikas Board, Narayaiipm' siiice 1990. He was going to attend tl'ie exliibition related to haiid-craft from Nai'ayatipur to Kiiodagaon, by sittjiig iii tiie veliicle (LGV)y in question. The Clauiis Tribuiial has not considered whetlier travelitig ui tlie Liglit Goods Vehicle by the deceased was permissible or not, uiider fiie law. 10. In Sections 168 aiid 169 of fhe* Act provide fliat fiie Clainis Tribuiial shall conduct aii enquiry on receivmg tlie clalm petition. Besides above, Rule 226 of tlie C.G. Motor Vel-ucle Rules, 1994 also provides the procediire tiiat tlie Claims Tribiuial shall conduct enquuy tp ascertaui the facts ui the claii'n petition. Therefore, it was tlie bomiden duty of tlie Clauiis Tribunal to bring the ti'utli 011 record, Purflier tlie Claims Tribunal should not ti'eat tlie claun petition as a civil suit as an explorer of ti'ufli, it is reqtured to conduct aa enquuy. But flie Claims Trlbunal has not conducted a proper eiiquliy as if the tiaveliag ui the LGV was not permisslble under the law, how the appeUant/Insm'aace Compaiiy could have been held Uable to pay compensation. Therefore, we ai-e of flie opmion, tiie matter fequii'es reconsidei'ation at tlie end of the Claims Tribmial. 11, Iii Uie malter of Rc^ Kuynar ~iw- -4/aff Kwnar and cmother; reported iii 2010 (12) SCALE, Hoiilyle tlie Apex Court lald down m Pai'a-11 that It is tiie duty of tlie Tribmial to conduct aii enquiiy aiid tlie clami petition should not be ti-eated as if the same is a Civil Suit. ^. 12. Para 11 of tiie judgiiient is quoted as mider: 'The Tribunal should not be a sUent spectator when medical evidence is tendered m regai'd to tlie injm'ies aiid flieii' effect, m particulai' the ^£"\ ,^' •r % 'l"^.; ^ %.. extent of permaiient disabUity. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident fhat tlie Tribunal does not fuiiction as a neuti'al umpu-e as ui a civil sult, but as an active explorer aiid seeker of ti'utli who is requii'ed to tiold an enquiiy mto titie claim' for determiiiing tiie just'compensatlon'. The Tribunal should therefore take aii active role to ascertaui tlie true and con~ect positiou so fhat it caii assess the 'just comperAsatioii.,....,.?? 13. In view of flie above, we allow ti-iis appeal ui part, set- aside tiie uiipugiied award aiid remit tiie matter back to tlie Claims Tribunal to declde the saine afresh, in the li^it of tiie obsex'vatlons rnade above. 14. Needless to mention that ti.ie pai'tles shsdl be allowed to amend tlie pleadings, adduce fmtlier evidence, file docunients or get tlie docuiiients vertfled etc. arid fhereafter, fhe decision shall be taken a&'esh. 15. The paities shall appear before tlie Claims Tribmial on 16-11-2011. 16. The r-ecords of fhe Clainis Tribmial shall be sent back witliout furtlier delay. 17. As tlie owner/respondent I^o. 5 is not present before tliis Coui't, notice wUl be issued to lilm for appeai'aiice. 18. No order as to costs, Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge P;vr