1;^^ 1. i;:;;.-f i'f "r :;!:-' ^ -"^X-^-u^^-i^w^^.v^^.^^.^^;^^ .^^^,:^.^^.^^ Bivisiongwicli rNTHEHON'BLEHlGHCOURTOFeHHAmSGARHATBILASPUR ^:Misc.^peal.^-No...^.^^:4':;^'"::::/26 :.'! ;.' :r , ApraajANT ^ RBgroNDENTS ./ ':...;. ^ ' ^ 'Bajaj Allianz General Insnrance ComparQt .laiiD.ifed, 'I'hrough^ Branch' Ma.nagei', Shiv Mphan Bhawari, Vidh.an. ^Sablia;;.Roa.d, Pandn. Raipur fC.G.l^ (INSORER OF VEHICI^ MOTOR CYCI® NC). C.G. 07/LG-88171 VERSUS ManthirYadavs/o Late Prem Siiigh, aged about60years, ., ^*.'- '•'..••.'•' . ' . • ' • .:''•• . . ' ' • • • •"' Karrila. Bat w/p Manthir Yadav aged' about :55years,,.:,':1.: •. ;';;: .• ':: ' , - ; ';"'•:. Mohini Bai W/o Late Rekhlal, aged about 34years, :,.:- - ' , ^ '•iSte^, ;'^ 'VA: Gileshwar s/6 Late Rekhlal, aged abQUt 16 ^.^-::'.::YeT::',',:,::" ^•^^^^ ^< -Taleshwari D/o Late Rekhlal, aged about t4years, . . ; L^ ^^ .•••"!^%t^ ^T(^ ^ A-' 6). ss- 7). ^ 81 Rupeshwari D/p Late Rekhlal; aged. ahout 12 . year, Respondent no.. 4 tp . 6;niinQr represented througfc natui^l/ guardian Mother Mohini Bai W/o Lafe Rekhlal Respohdent no^., All R/o Village Potiyakala, .YWard Nq. 53 Bhathapara, Durg TahsU 8s District Durg (C.G.] (CLAIMANTSt Shail Kumar Banjare, S/6 Indra Kumar Banjare, ' aged^ aboi.it 25 years,;; R/o Rabfadah, .TKana & Talisil DKamdha District. Durg! fC.Q^ (INSURER OF VEHICLE MOTOR GYGLE; N0. C.G. 07/LG-8817) .Si.lrajbali '^ Markandey S/o Virplela Markaadey\ agfed ' ^out 28 .years,. R/o RaNadah,«.Thajro & ^Tahsa Dlagmdha ,District,, Burgi. : ;(C.©.),'-^{OWNER;;^OF V^lGl^ I^TOR CYCI^ N0. 07^LG-88l7t ^ •. , -: -./';':1.' • . MEMORAimiUnS'OFaU^Eau^UNiBS^sSECMQ^a^ VEHIC3a»^AX^l»88aAS?^!iIS^ ^^^^:^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BjLASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. i.M.QUDDuai & HON'BLE MR.GULAM MINHA.JUDDIN.JJ Appeitant Respondents M.A.rclNo.596/2010 Bajaj Aliianz General insurance Co. Vs Manthir Yadav and 7 others Mr. Sachin Singh Rajput, Advocate for the appeiiant. Mr. Santosh Yadu, Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 6. >thORDERfOral) (30'nSeptember,2011) I. Quddusi. J; Heard. 4. 6. The appellant-lnsurance Company has filed this appeal against the award dated 04.01.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Ctaims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.48/09. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the claimants have filed a ciaim apptication under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988') before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.5,60,220/- for the death of deceased Rekhlal @ Bagga, who died due to injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, which took place on 23.11.2008, when the motorcycle bearing registration number CG07/LJ/8817, in which the deceased was traveting as pillion rider, has met with an accident due to rash and negiigent driving by its driver. The claimants, who are parents, widow & cHildren of the deceased.have claimed compensation on the ground that they were dependent on the deceased, who was the sole earning member in the family, and due to his death, they have suffered loss of income. The Claims Tribunal vide impugned award partly allowed the claim appiication, awarded a sum of Rs.3,83,500/- along with simpie interest @ 6% p.a. and fastened liability on the Insurance Company to satisfy the impugned award. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the records ofthe Claims Tribunal. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988') provides that on receipt of application for compensation, the Claims Tribunal shall hold an inquiry into the claim. Section 169 of the Act, 1988 prescribes procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunat and says that in holding any inquiry under Section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow suchsummary procedure as it thinks fit. The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath r ^ Roshan/- and of enforcing attendance of the witnesses and of competling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed and the Claims Tribunai shall be deerfted to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Cr.P.C. Besides this, in Rule 226 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 also it has been provided that the Claims Tribunal shatl conduct enquiry to ascertain the fact. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also in Para-11 of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & another reported in 2010 (12) SCALE 265 has h'eld that "...Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evldence is tendensd in fegatd to ie injuries and their effoct, in particular the extent ofpennanent disabiiity. SecSons 168 and 169 oftheAct make it evkSent that the Tn'bunal 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 'hoid an enquiry 'into ff?e c/af/n' for determining the 'Just compensation'. The Tribunal should therefoi'e take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so thatitcan assess the 'just compensaiiorf. 8. In light of the above, if we peruse the records of the Claims Tribunal, it is evident that though Panchram Kurre (NAW-3), an.employee of R.T.O., Durg, appeared in the witness box, but he has not given a positive statement regarding the fact as to whether driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident or not and therefore, we feel that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Claims Tribuna!. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Claims Tribunal for decision afresh in light of the observations made in this order. Needless to mention that the Claims Tribunal shall provide opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, or to ca!l/ recali the witnesses, amend the pleadings or to file or verify the documents already filed. The Claims Tribunal shall summon the concerned witness during the course of enquiry, as provided under Sections 168 & 169 and Rule 226 and try to decide the claim application afresh as early as possible, preferably within a period of threej'nonths from the date of appearance of the parties. It is also directed that if the amount 'd'eposited by the appellant has not been disbursed so far to the claimants, the same shall be not be disbursed and kept in a fixed deposit scheme of a nationalized bank and shall be subjectto the decision afresh in the matter. 10.The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal concerned on 22.11.11. The Registry is directed to transmit record of the Claims Tribunal concerned without further delay. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sdy- G. Minhajuddin I.M.Quddusi , Judge Judge |