^'^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH MISC. APPEAL N0. IS^ OF 2005 -^ APPELLANT/ ^LAIMANT ^ ^<.....» ~^% y"^'y^ ^^' '^--"' RESPONDENT/ /fsTON-CLAIMANT ..>" ^Hukum Narayan Patel, S/o Panna Lal Patel, Aged about 35 years, R/o Village - Bhedikona, P.S. & Tah - Dabhra, District Janjgir- Champa (Chhattisgarh), Versus ^Kamlesh (Tractor owner), S/o Lakhpati Patel, R/o Kotmara, P.S. - Pusore, TaJi & Distt - Raigarh (CG) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTORVEHICLE ACT HJGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH:HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. Appellant Claimant Respondent/ Non-Applicant M.A. No. 1267/2005 Vs Hukum Narayan Patel Kamlesh (Tractor Owner) • Present: Mr. HS Patel, counsel for the appellant. / Mr».Amit Sharma, counsel for the respondent. ORDER(Oral) (7th September, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J; This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (in short "the Tribunal") dated 29.7.2005 passed in Claim Case No.23/02, whereby the Tribunal, after holding that the claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,62,494/-, has rejected the claim petition of the claimantwithcost. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.6.1999 the appellanVclaimant had come to the Court of SDO, Raigarh for prosecuting a case. While he was returning to his Village - Bhedikona by motorcycle bearing registration No. MP 26-KB/7220, which was being driven by oneMadhav Patel, at that time the respondent by driving truck bearing registration No. MPL 1798 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle"), which was owned by the respondent, rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle with full force, as a result of which the claimant and Madhav Patel fell from the motorcycle. The claimant sustainedmultiple fracture ofthe bones of left leg, knee and below the knee. He also sustained fracture of left wrist. The left side body and face were completely bruised. The claimant and Madhav Patel were admitted in the clinic of Dr. B.R. Patel at Darogapara, •••^,' ^ (S) Raigarh, in an unconscious condition, where they underwent treatment for the whole night. On the next day, Madhav Patel lodged a report of the accident in Police Station - City Kotwali, Raigarh, whereupon Criminal Case No.290/99 was registered. The claimant and Madhav Patel were admitted in KG Hospital, Raigarh by the police of City Kotwali, Raigarh, where X-ray of the claimant was conducted. After X- ray, he was referred to MMI Hospital, Raipur, where left leg and hanrl of the claimant were operated upon and rod and plate were inserted in left leg and plastering was done. The claimant remained hospitalized from 16.6.1999 to 12.7.1999 and again from 3.8.1999 to 9.8.1999. He was again admitted in hospital for operation on 1.5.2000. 3. The claimant has incurred Rs.1,22,801/- on his treatment. In addition to this, he has incurred Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance, Rs.15,000/- towards diet and also sustained loss of income from advocacy and agriculture. Thus, by filing a claim petition under Section 220(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988"), he claimed a total compensation of Rs. 10,87,8017- under various heads. 4. However, learned Tribunal, after close scrutiny of the evidence, oral and documentary, adduced by the parties, assessed the total compensation at Rs.2,62,494/-, for which the claimant was held entitled, but rejected the claim petition with cost on the ground that from the material available on record, it was not proved that the respondent is liable for the payment of the above compensation amount. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the lower court record (LCR) as well as the impugned award. 6. Upon perusal of the impugned award, we have found that the Tribunal has assessed the quantum at Rs.2,62,494/-, but did not direct to pay the same to the claimant as it was not ascertained as to who was the owner of the offending vehicle. 7. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of the CG Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 provide that the Tribunal shall conduct an enquiry to determine the fact in respect of award of compensation. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in treating the claim petition as a civil suit and deciding the same only on ^•fa%<. ^<"'€\ .^'. '^ %' 1 ^ .; the basis of pleadings or the evidence adduced by the parties. It was the dyty of the Tribunal to ascertain the fact by conducting an enquiry. Record of the offending vehicle from the RTO concerned should have been summoned and the chassis number and engine number as well as the owners name could have been verified, however, it has not been done. 8. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, reported in 2010 INDLAW SC 996 : 2010(12) Scale 265, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para-11, has held thus: "Para 11 The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal 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'. While dealing with personal injury cases, the Tribunal should preferably equip itself with a Medical Dictionary and a Handbook for evaluation of permanent physical impairment (for example the Manual for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment for Orthppedic Surgeons, prepared by American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons or its Indian equivalent or other authorized texts) for understanding the medical evidence and assessing the physical and functional disability. The Tribunal may also keep in view the first schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which gives some indication about the extent of permanent disability in different types of / injuries, in the case of workmen. If a Doctor , r ^!«. \^.,-^;\^ -^» ^/ giving evidence uses technical medical terms, the Tribunal should instruct him to state in addition, in simple non-medical terms, the nature and the effect of the injury. If a doctor gives evidence about the percentage of permanent disability, the Tribunal has to seek clarification as to whether such percentage of disability is the functional disability with reference to the whole body or whether it is only with reference to a limb. If the percentage of permanent disability is stated with reference to a limb, the Tribunal will have to seek the doctor's opinion as to whether it is possible to deduce the corresponding functional permanent disability with reference to the whole body and if so the percentage." 9. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has not conducted enquiry to ascertain the truth and has treated the claim petition as if the claim was a civilsuit. Therefore, in our opinion, the matter requires reconsideration at the end ofthe Tribunal. 10. In the result, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned award and remit the matter back to the claims Tribunal to decide the case afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, in the light ofthe observations made above, as earlyas possible,preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. Needlessto mention that the parties shall also be allowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence, file documents and get the documents verified etc.and thereafter, fresh findings shall be given by the Tribunal and award shall be passed afresh. The Tribunal shall also conduct an enquiry into the claim for determining the just compensation. 12. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on .18 October, 2011. 13. LCR shall be sent back to the Tribunal without further delay. 14. No order as to coXs. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ^