<?^'\j ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE. AT BILASPUR (C.G.I Appellants Applicants M.A. N0. 75^ /2004 1. Smt. Shail Singh widow of Sugreev Singrf^Gore Singh, aged about 40 years. 2. Smt. Jamuna Bai, Widow o£Fir^ Singh, aged about 60 years'F Vi'^- Parpoda, Post. Mohabhatta, Thana- Chowbey Devkar, Tehsil-Saja, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3. Smt. Santoshi, W/o. Hemant Singh <' Rajput, aged about 21 years, R/o. Vill. Post Andhiyar Khor, Tehsil. Navagarh, Dist. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Respondents / 1.^ Shri Parminder Singh, S/o. Dilip Applicants ^' Singh,..Panjabi, aged about 21 years, owner Truck No. CG. 07 ZC 2376. 2. Devendra Sahu, S/o. Shri B.R.Sahu / vehicle Driver Truck No. CG 07 ZC 2376. Both R/o. Santrabadi, Durg, Distt. ^ Durg(C.G.) ,\° \^$^;' 3. Newlndia A^y.-y' ^ Divisic cp ,<Y^^'a <^' A^'^W ^•^^K 23?" ^1r^A ^ ^ ^- 4, Jainuna Bai @ Gulechi, W/o. S> Devbagas, Caste-Dhobi. t/^ India Insurance Company, ^ Divisional Office, Bhilai, Insurer company Vehicle no. CG 07/ZC 2376, Distt. Durg (C.G.). ...•^ "^" 5. Smt. Champa Bai, W/o. Swalp, ^ Caste - Dhobi. ^~- 6. Ku. Rekha, D/o. Devbagas, Caste- ^ Dhobi, aged about 14 years. 7.^ Nemu, S/o. Devbagas, aged about 9 ^ years. Both through Devbagas (father) \y ftM-~ ^ v^ - P^^^ ^^ ~ 3^ y Tc^- pe^ 3^^-J)tc^ ^6^ Ct^ r" w-/ MISC. APPBAL U/S 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT OF 1988. Amount claimed before the tribunal. Rs.1^1,40,000/- Amount awarded by the tribunal. Appeal claini value. Zero Rs.13,40,000/- ^ Beine aggrieved by award dtd. 1T.4.04 passed by Learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (FTC) Bemetara, Distt. Bilaspur in claim case no. ^/20Q3, the apoellants named above bees to oreferj:his appeal on the followine facts & grounds. FACTS OF THE CASB: ^' Y) OF AJ ftR. A ^JJ. m,A. Smt. Shd! Sinqh & oth^rs Vs Shri Parmind'er Sinqh & others . ft^poiidcirte %,A. No. 556/2004 Jamuna Bd @ &uiechj A others Vs Smt, Shai! Singh A others .Pr^sirjt; Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate far the appeltants in M.A.733/04 and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in M.A. No.556/04. Mr» S.C. Verma, Advocate for the appelionts in M.A. No» 556/04 arjd respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in M.A, No,733/04. ftAr. Shaiiendra Sharma, Advocate for the respondent In^urance Company, (23pd F^broapy, 2011) I.M. Quddvsi. J; l. Heard, 2. M«A. Nos»733/04.A 566/04 are being disposed of by this common order as both these appeals have filed agatnst th@ a^ard dated 17.4,2Cxj4 by th@ 2na Additional Motor Accidcnt Claims Tribuna!, (FTC) Bemetaro, Dura in CJaim Case No.9/2003 whereby the claim application and cross-objection filed by"the appeliants in both these appeals have dismissed on the ground that they faiJed to establish that the acci(!ent has taken piace due to negligence on the part of non-applicant No.2/ respondent Devendra Sa.hu i»e. driver ofthe offending vehick 3. Fcicts of the case, in brief, are that on 8.1.2003 Sugreev Singh (since deceased) was going from Parpoda to Devkarja mth &ov€rdhan Singh on the motorcycie, On the way, th@ motorcycle on which thcy i^ere traveling WQ€ dashed by a truck bearing registration number C&07-ZCM2367 as a result said Sugreev Singh sustoined grievous snjuries and died. Report of thc jncident was in the poiice station Saja on the of i^hich. offence p 's- under Sections 279, 337 & 304 (A) of the IPC was registered. The cloimants, who are wicJow.mother & daughter of the deceased have claimed cornpensatjon to the tune of Rsj3,40,OOOA under various heads. The. appeiionts in M»A. ND.556/04 have a'lso fibd crosswobjection cbiming themselves to be the legal heirs of deceased Sugreev Singh and sought compensation of Rsj5,50,000/M on various grounds. 4» The ClQims Tribunai, affer considering the issues fromed by it and also evidence brought on record bythe porties, refused the compensotion to.the appeibnts herein on the grouftd that they failed to establish the fact that accident has taken piace due to negiigence on the pcirt of the driver of the offending vehscle. "5, We have heord iearned counsel for the porties. We have also the records of the Ciaims Tribunal. 6. Qn close'scrutiny of the record, we found that claim appiscation has dism.issed an th©ground that cbjmants have not produced the eye^itnesses of the Gccident in support of their and therefore rash and negiigent driving could not be proved. 7, Under Section 168 of the Act 1988 it has been provided that the CIaims Tribuna! gha.il hold an inquiry into th@ cfaim. Even in sub-section (4) of the Section 166 of the Act, 1988 it has been provided that the Claims Tribunal shail treat any report of acciddents for^arded to it under sub-section (65 of section 158 as an app!icQtj.Qn.for compensation under this Act. 8, Besides above, in Rule 226 of the Motor Vehicle Rutes, 1994 (for short 'fhe RuJes') it has been provided that the Ciaims Tribunal shal! conduct enquiry to ascertain the foct» Infact, the cbim appiicatson under the Act, 1988 cannot be treated as Q civsl suit. The intention of the iegiglatyrc is very ciear th.at the vsctim or in cose of death, lego.l heirs.of the deceased should not be deprived of getting compensation in genuine. coses Qnd as such conduct of enqujry by the CJaims Tribunai has provjded under the Act, 1988 and the Ruies mad@ thereunder.Therefor.e, it ^/as th@ bounden duty of the .Claim-s Tribunal to brin9 truth on record Qnd if the eye^itnesses m the case were not produced by the cbimants, the Claimis Tnbuna! cauld have ^^ ^^ i summoned them ^i/o mati/ to oscertGin the truth clyring the ..conduct of enquiry. 9. In vsei^ of the above discussion, we hme no hesitation in saying.that the Cbims Tribunal has not folbwed the provisions of Kule 226 of th@ ftuies as also Section 168 of the Act» Thus we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the end ofthe Tribunal. 10.. Accordingiy, we ailow these Qppeais in part, set aside the award da.ted 17.4.2004 passed in Cbim Case No.9/2003 by the iearned 2nd A.ddj+ionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), BemetarQ, Durg (C6) and remit thc matter back to the Claims Tribunal for decision afresh. The Tribuna! shai! .provide opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, and shall foib^ the provisions of Kuie 226 in decjding the ciGim petition. Th© porties shall al^o be ©ntitiedto amend thc pieGdingiS or fiie documents or verify the.documents dready fiied. ll,, The parties cre directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal concerned on 6th 2011. 12. The Registry is directed to trGnsmit the record of the cbims tribunai concerned without further debv. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd//- : Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge RoshanA