^f4 ?oM J7 OF(20lb"t0^jsjo^ ^^&^" 'yy ^ "c.^ Allianz Insurance Company , through Branch Mahager, ^ ^•^- .<s- ^' Marg, Pandri, Raipur (C.6.) Smt. Amro Bai W/o Ralnu Salam 21 Years. 2. (y, Ku. Urmiia &/o Rajnu Saiam Aged 1 Years. Smt. DukaJo Bai Vi/'/o Ran'iii Saiam Aged .53 Yesrs. ii S/o 6uha"arn Soiam Aaed 55 Respondent No. 2 is /iAinos natural guardian Smt. Rajnu Saiam Aged 21 Years Lohattar P.S. Viliage Th. - BaStar 5^-ft Ra.ju Ro.m S/o Ram Prasad Aaed 28 v 's W QL R? /' C..(y. 6 ei Goutam Baghel S/o Shri R.R. Aged 35 Years R/o Aamabeda P.S, Aamabedc Th. - Ataacrh &jstrict - East Bastar Kanker C.'S. ( / Q •>». M N 1~; o *lbt im » 3m Q u>xw H [o 1-? 1£Is li-i "u HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: HON'BLE I.M. QUDDUSI 85 HON'BLE GHULAM MINHAJUDDIN, JJ M. A. (Cl. No. 77 OF 2011 APPELLANT Bajaj AUianz Insuraace Co. Ltd. Vs. APPBAL UNDER SECTION 173 OP THE MOTORVEHICLBS ACT, APPEARANCB: Mr. Abhishek Siuha & Mr. Ghan Shyam Patel counsel for fhe appellant. None for the respondents though served. Per I.M. QUDDUSI, J ORDER (ORALl (11.05.2011) 2. List is being revised. Case . is again caUed out. Even when the inatter is catled out twice, no one appears on behalfof fhe respondents despite service of notice upon fhein. Therefore, we proceed agamst fhe respondents. 3. This appeal has been ffled by the Insuraace Coinpaay agauast impugned award dated 30.08.2010 passed by fhe Additional Accideat Claims Tribunal, Bhaaupratappur, Distt. Kanker (norfh Bastar) in Claim Case No. 13/2010 so far as it relates to fastening Uabilily upoii it, fhough it was aBeged fhat fhere was breach of Insurance PoUcy. 4. Brief facts of fhe case as per fhe version of fhe claimaats are fhat on 04.01.2010 deceased Rajnuram alongwifh other coneagues were travelmg iu Bolero Jeep bearing Regn.No.C.G.17-D/163l. They were going to viflage / RJBSPOWDENTS Sinfc Amro Bai and ofhers ,r ,sS£tKfe.:--. Aniabeda froxa Raipur. On the way at about 11.00 p.in. (night), the said Jeep whicb was being dnven by respondent no.5 Raju Ram in a rash aad negUgent inanner dashed a standiag truck fi~oin back side near village Boledgatian Dhaba on Dhauitan-Kaiiker road, as a result of which, Rajnuraxu sustained grievous iajuries. He was adHiitted in Dharatari Hospital where he died on fhe next day during fhe course of trcatment. The deceased was aged about 30 years. Before fb.e accident, he was running a provision shop and was also working as an Agent of Sai Prasad Coinpany aad was eaming a inontbly incoine of Rs.7000/- per nionfh. The claunaa.ts being dependents/legal representatives filed a claiin petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the award of coinpensation to the tune ofRs.19,50,000/- under various heads. 5. The leamed Clatms Tribunal has held fhat fhe offendiag Bolero Jeep beartag Rega.No. C.G.17-D/1631, which was being driven by respondent no.5 iu a rash and negUgent laaaner inet wifh accident, as a result ofwhich, the deceased died and there was no breach of conditions of fhe insurance policy. The Tribunal has awarded a total coinpensation of Rs.5,57,000/- which fhe claunants are entifled to receive froin fhe non-appUcaats joiutly or severaUy. 6. We have heard learaed counsel for fhe pardes at lengfh and have also gone fhrough the records. 7. ' A perusal of fhe record shows fhat the First Infonnation Report itselfspeaks fhat Jeep No. C.G.17-D/1631 was beiag used as Taxi, but fhe InsuTaace of the same was inade as 9. private car aad therefore, there was breach of conditions of the insuraace policy. The Tribunal has not considered the police record aad thus in our opinion, it has not conducted a proper enquiiy to ascertaui fhe trutfa as provided ia Rule 226 offhe C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules and Section 168 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Claun Petition should not have been treated as a civil suit and therefore, fhe Tribunal as an. explorer of truth is required to conduct au enquiry for ascertaining the factual position. It has been provided ia Rule 226 of C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 fhat the Claims Tnbunal shaU obtaia whatever infonnation aad docuiaeats which inay be fouiid necessary froin fhe police, niedical aad other authorities and proceed to award the claiin whefher fhe parties who were given notice, appear or not, on fbe appoiated date. Further we cannot ignore the provisiQns ofsectionl68 offhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides fhat on receipt of an application for coinpensatioii niade u/s 166, fhe Claiins Tribunal shatl after giviag the parties (including fhe insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold aa iaquiry into the claun aad subject to fhe provisions of section 162 inay niake an award determiniug the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. Further iu case of Raj Kumar -vs- AJay Kumar and another decided on 18th October, 2010 aad reported in IV (2010) Accideut 65 Compensatlon Cases 815 (SC) Hon'ble the Supreine Court held ia Para 11 that Sections 168 aad 169 of the Act inake it evident that fhe Tribunal-does not function as a aeutral uiapire as in a civil siiit, but as au 'v active explorer aad seeker of trufh who is required to 'hold aa inquiry into the claini' for de-terminiag ffcie 'just coinpensation'. The Tribuaal should fherefore take an active role to ascertahi fhe true and correct position so fhat it caa assess fhe just coiapensation'. 10. In fhe iastant case, the Tribiuial has not conducted any enquiry in the nianner indicated above. Therefore, we are of the view fhat the inatter rBquiics reconsideration at fhe end of the Tribunal. 11. Hence, we aUow this appeal in part; set aside fhe award dated 30.08.2010 aad reinit the inatter back to the Tribuiial for decision afresh. The Tribunal shall also suTnmon the police records aad ofbier relevant records froin the Insurance Conipany, which are necessary for ascertaming fhe trufh aad adjudication of fhe facts. Needless to laention that parties shall be aUowed to ainend the pleadiags, adduce further evidence, if any; file fhe documents or get fhe docuinents verified ete., and thereafter the Tribunal shaU decide fhe claica petition afresh at the earUest ia light of fhe observations ruade hereia above. The records of the Tnbunal shaU be sent back wifhout further delay. Sd/-_ l.lA.Qudd^ ]udg,e Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rati