|)ivisionBen( ^ ~ \\ IN THE_HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPU MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL N0. /'2-^° OF 2005 APPELLANTS: /" (Claimants) vs RBSSPONDENTS: »^SS^3-^-" p<ssss*'°\..--^'""' &aW&--"' ^' 1. Smt. Rashmi Sharma, aged about 32 years, daughter of Shri Keshav Sharma, resident of Budhapara, Rs-ipur. Master Yogaank Sharma, son of Late Shriram Sharraa, through natural guardian Smt. Rashmi Sharma, resident of Budhapara, Raipur. - 1. Bachnu Yadav, son ot' Shri Sadanand Yadav, aged about 36 years, resident of Darri Basti, Police Station Darri, District Korba. i Mahaveer Prasad Agarwal, <son of Late Ramkumar Agarwal, aged about 60 years, resident of Agrasen Chowk, Korba. ^S-.National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office at Manu Complex, Main Road, Dosa Badi, Korba. - 4^/ Krishna Mahananda, son of •^c . . Shri Mukudram Mahananda, yearg, Prateek GandHi aged about 36 resident of Near Kirana Stores, Nagar, Raipur. | | Pratish Sharma, son of Shqij ;.;;L]LL-iJ< r Htu'ib[l-^hr"*i / The Oriental C-ompany Ltd., P.D. Sharma, resident of Priyadarshini Nagar, Raipur. Insurance Divisional Office No.2, Shyam Market, Jivan Beema Marg, Pandri, Raipur. Amount claimed before the tribunal and this Court is Rs.4,95,30,000/- Amount awarded by the tribunal below : NI.L «^' MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTIO'N 173 OF THE MQTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 •i....-..j-_U_iiajiii..±j^£!iS&!3aaHteaMsau ^.n.L_j 2-oas__ W.U y.s''-^. '^^'•i,^-*^'^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QU&DUSI & HON'BLE MR.6ULAM MINHAJU&DIN. JJ Appellants Reseondents M.A. N0.1250/Z005 Smt. Rashmi Sharma & onr. Vs Bachnu yetdav <& others Present: Mr. Kshitiz Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. S.K. Agarwal, Sr.Adv. with Mr. A. Supta, Adv. for respondent No.3, " Mr. S.C. Verma, Adv. for respondent No.4. Mr. M.K. Bhaduri, Adv. for respondent No.5. Mr. Saurabh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.6. OR&ER (Orol) (.30* August. 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appellemts have filed this miscellcmeous appeal against the order dated Ot.8.2005 passed by the learned l Additionol Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case >' No.17/03 dismissing the claim petition under Order 17 Rule 3 of CPC. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the claimcmts, who are wife and son of the deceased Sriram Sharma, have filed a claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the AAotor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act, 1988') claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.4,95,30,000/- for the death of said Sriram Sharma, who died in a road accident on 27.2.2001 when the Tata Safari bearing registration number C605-0018, in which the deceased along with the appellants herein was traveling from Bitaspur to Rdipur, was dashed by the truck bearing registrdtion number MP26-D- 4268. The main ground on which the claimomts have claimed compensation is that they were dependent on the deceased, who was sole earning member in the family, and due to his dea-th, they have suffered loss of income. A-: 4. The Claims Tribunal vide impugned order dismis^d the claim application of the claimiint in exercise of powers under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC. 5. We hwe heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 6. Perusal of the record shows that on 01.08.2005. on which date the impugned order was passed, the matter wexs fixed for evidence, however, on that day an opplication was filed on behalf of the appellants herein seeking adjournment on the ground that the appellants, who are coming from Raipur, are unable to come to the Court due to blockage of road on " account of overflowing of water over the Kolhooui Nala (culvert). But 1he Claims Tribunal have not accepted the aforesaid ground and not only rejected the application but atso dismissed the claim application in exercise of powers under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC. 7. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that on receipt of an 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 Tribunal 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 such summary procedure as it thinks fit. The Claims Tribunal shall hwe all the powers of a Civit Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects ond for such other purposes as may be prescribed and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court- for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chopter 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 shall conduct enquiry to ascertain the fact. 8. In the mafter of Rojkumar Vs. Ajay Kuinar & arwther reported in 2010 (12) SCALE 265 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "...Tribunalshould not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to •tfie injuries and their effect, in particuhr the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of ihe Act make it evident 1fia+_rtjt T I;oshan/- Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an actiye explorer wid seeker of tnith who is required to 'holdan enquiry into •the claim' for determining the 'Just compensation'. The Tribunal d^ould iherefore take an active role to ascertain Ihe true and correct posi+ion so ihat it can assess -the fust compensation........." 9. In view of above, it is evident that the Claims Tribunal hos coinmitted manifest error of law in dismissing the claim petition as the Claims Tribunal has treated the claim application as if the same was a civil suit. Whereas, it is the duty of the Claims Tribunal to conduct on enquiry, as provided under Sections 168 & 169 of the Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, to find out the truth oaid for this, the Claims Tribunal can direct the presence of any witnesses either by directing the claimants to pay process fee for issuonce of summons to him or can summon auch witnesses suo motu. Therefore, we feel that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Claims Tribunal. 10.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, impugned order is setaside 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 opporhinity to the parties to adduce further evidence, if ony, or to call/recall the witnesses, amend the pleadings or to file documents or verify the documents already filedand then decide the claim petition after conducting necessary enquiry as provided under Sections 168 & 169 of the Act, 1988 and Rules 226 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal concerned on 29 September. 2011. 11. The Registry is directed to tronsmit record of the Claims Tribunal concerned without further delay. No order as to costs. \> ——" Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge G.^^y iud^ d*n