F- wsson 3sa;a IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASSPUR M.A/ONO ^51 /2011 APPELLANT ^97 Akshaiwar Nath Dubey ^son of late Rampfeal<air y ,y/ ^ ^7/< §y/^' ,^:-x/ ^-^ c-' ./ <?'.<?' /^/ / Dubey aged 63 years retired Govt Servant ,<^ Resident of Sattipara ward Ambikapur Tahsil and Police Station Ambikapur District Sarguja C.G. Applicant VERSUS SSPONDENTS l.Shivkumar Agrawal aljas Shibu Seth son of -: s?±l<in?-YMqY)« fqnG^r^\<3t^ Shri Ran'iawQtQi^Agrawa 1 aged 50 years Resident of New Bus stand by the side of Maya Lodge Ambikapur Police Station Ambikapur District Saruja C.G. | 2.Manish ^kumar Agrawal son of Ramawatar ^O ^<^-aA- | Road Ambikapur Tahsil and Police Station | Ambikapur District Sarguja C.G. ^3.The oriental Insurance Company Itd Banaras Road AmbikapurC.G. Non-ApDlicants APPEAL UNDER SECTION173 OF THE MOTQRVEHICLE ACT 1988 :-^s^ HI^LCOURT OF CHMAmS&ARH ATAXLASPU^ bIVISION B6NCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QU&ESUSI & HON'BLE MR.6ULAM MINHAJUD&IN. JJ ApDcllant ResponcJents M.A. rCl No.351/2011 Akshaiwcr Nalti Oubey Vs Shjvkumcr /^arwal alias Shtbu Seth <& others Prescnt? Mr. J.S. Baraik, Advocate fop the oppellont. Mr»Anan ^iukkx, Advocate for tiie respondent Nos.1 <St 2. Mrs. Chitra Shrivastava, Advocate for the rsspondent No3. Oft&ER(OraO (4th July. 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. A -. ^- -^-"-- 2. Tlie c^pellant-clcrimant has filed this mtseeKoneous appeal agamst the oaward doted 16.12.2010 passed by the leamed 3rd Additional Motor Accident Cfaims Tribunal, (FTC), Ambikapur(for short 'the Ctaims Tnbunal<) hi Ctaim Qase No.55/08. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are 1+iat on 23.1.2006 wrihen •riiie daimflnt was crossmg the road at thdt time the non-appMcant No.t, who wwes coming towards 6andhi Chowk on his motorcycle in high ^eed, fhahesjt the ctajmouit as a result of which he sustained various grievous injiries on his body and became unconscious. He was taken to Sriram Hospital, Ambikapur udiere he was treated till 26.1.2006 and even after his discharge, he was continuoLKly takin9 treatment. The injured-claimant filed claiin (SppllcGrt'ion seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.4.20,000/- for 1*ie toss of income occasioned to him on the account of 1+ie said accident, 4. T|he Claims Tribunal vide impu9ned award dismissed -riie claim of the cJaitnant w •riie ground that from "riie documents adduced by tte clainunt it js not established that the accident has been caused by ^»evehicle in question. S. We have heard learned a&unsel for the parties. We have atso peru^d ^he records of the Claims Tribunal. i ^^^^^^ /y 6. 3h the record a copy of first informatjon r^port of the ac^idtent is avaitabte in which name of •the drivep of offendin9 vehicle is given, hwwever, since registration numlwr^ was not written on the number plate of offeBding vehiete, the claimant coutd not tifosrm 1+ie same to the police, but it has come in the findings of the Clalms Tribunal that the claimant had statc^d that 1tie police after investi9atJon could find put the registratton fiumber of offendfrig vehicle. 7. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides 1*»aton receipt of an flpplication for compensation, the Claims Tribunal shall hold an inquiry into the claim. Sectipn 169 of the Aet, 1988 prescribes procedureand ywwers of the Claims Tribunal and says that in holding any inquiry under Section 168/ the . Claims Tribunal may, subject to oaiy niles -thQt may be ma<te In -riiis behdf, follow sudh aimmary procedure as it thinks fit, Tlie Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Courl- for the purpose of ta^ing evidence on oath and of enforcin9 the att-endance of witnesses and of eompetling the discovsry and production of documents and materkxl objects^;and for such olh®*purposes as moy be prescribed and the Claims Tribunal shall be deeraed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of 1<ie Cr.P.C. Besides this, in Rule226 of the Motor Vehlcle Rules, i994 also it has been pro^ded 1+iat -rtie Claims Tribunal shalt conduct enquiry to ascertain l+ie fact. 8. Even in Section 166 (4) of the Act, 1988 it hfl«b^n provlded that the Cldims Tribunal shatl treat any report of the accident forwarded to it under sub- section (6) of Section t58 as an application for compensation under thfcs Act. 9. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal should not have tr^ited the claim q)plication under the Act, 1988 os a civil suit and it was bouncten ckjity of the Cldms . Tribunal to conduct proper enquiry to bring the truth on pecord and for 1+iis view we are supported fay the judgment of the Non'ble Apex CovrC in 1+te maUer of Rajkumar Vs. A^ay Kuniar A another reported in 2010 (12) SCALE wherein the Hon'bleApexCourthasheldtht^ "....<. rtieTribwial shQuld ? not be a silent ^pectator when medicaf evidenw is twit/ereel in wgard to the injuries cvid -ffieir effecf in particuhr iiie extent ofpermevwnt elisability. Sectwns 168 ond 169 of -rtw Act make itevident ihat -the Tfibunal doesnot Ivnction as a neutraf ^mpire as m a cwitsuit. but as <m actwe oytorer <md s^s^^^\ ^^ "^ .<r^: ^...s.^; Roshan/- see^er of trulft ¥^Q is required te ^ald <m en^iiry inU ifie cfwmf for ckterminiry the ^ust compensatfon'. The Tr&uned ^t€ ffdIfierefope tQke an active rok ta ascertain the true cmd correct {ws^itiwf s» theit if am a^^sjw Ihe IJust compensation........" 10. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the cypeal in part, set aside the inyugned award and remit -riie maUer back to the Clnims Trlbunat for taknag dedsion afreah in light of observations made in this order. Needte^s to nientim that the Claims Tribunal shalt provide opportunity to llie papties to adduce fur1+ier evidence, if any, and omend the pleadings or to flle docijments or verify the documents already filed. 11. TTie parties are dire<:ted to oppeoa* before the Claitns Tribunal concemeGJ on 29th Juty. 2011. The Registry is directed to transmit record of the Chms Tribunal ccincemed without furt+ier delay. No order as to c<^1g. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge