IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) MISC. APPEAL [C]NO. [(^> ^ /2008 APPELLANT Claimants ^s^ 1. Smt. Bhagwati Bhoi, wife of Late Shri Basudeo Bhoi, aged about 40 years, Caste-Kolta, 2., Ajay/son of Late Shri Basudeo Bhoi, aged about 23 years. Rajendra, son of Late Basudeo Bhoi, aged about 16 years, minor represented through her natural guardian mother Smt. Bhagwati Bhoi. 4. Chandrashekhar son of Late Basudeo Bhoi, agedabout 12 years, minor through her natural guardian mother Smt. Bhagwati Bhoi. 5. Awesh, Son of Late Basudeo Bhoj, aged about 10 years minor through her natural guardian mother Smt. Bhagwati Bhoi. All residents of Village Ghadfuljhar, Tehsil & Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.). <c VERSUS RESPONDENTS ,1. Rohit Nand, S/o. Chandra Bhanu Nand, aged about 27 years, resident of Village Durugpali, Tehsil-Basna, Police . Station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.). DRIVER Sarfaraj Alam, S/o. Abdul Gaffar, aged about resident of Basna, Tehsil Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.) OWNER The United India Insurance Company Limited, Kachhari Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 'INSURER" MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S. 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB.: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi and Kon'ble^Shri JjjsticeJ'rashant Kumar Mishra Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.1008 of 2008 Appellants Smt. Bhagwati Bhoi and others versus Respondents Rohit Nand and others Present: Shri Abhishek Sharma, counsel for the appellants. Shri Vikram Dixit, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 1 73 of the Motor Vehicles Act ORAL ORDER (Passedonl 8th March, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi, J.: Heard. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants challenging the award dated 15-1-2008 passed by the Motor Accidents CIaims Tribunal, Mahasamund in Claim Case No.95/2006. 3. Case of the claimants, as stated. in the claim petition, is that on the date of accident, i.e., 3-10-2006, deceased Vasudeo Bhoi was walking from Village Gadphuljhar to Salhetarai on his side. Tractor bearing registration No.CG 04 ZQ 6042 and trolley bearing registration No.CG 04 ZQ 6043, being driven by non-claimant Rohit Nand rashly and negligently, dashed the deceased on Village Salhetarai Road 2 kilometers ahead of Gadphuljhar. The deceased died on the spot in the accident. The incident was reported to the "'^ "% .'^3J ^. • ''^^^ ^ ^ Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund. The claimants, i.e., wife and sons of the deceased preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.12,35,000/-. 4 . The Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim of the claimants. 5. It has been provided ia Rule 226 of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Mptor Vehicles Rules, 1994 that the Claims Tribunal shall obtain whatever information and documents which may be found necessary from the police, medical and other authorities and proceed to award the claim whether the parties who were given notice, appear or not, on the appointed date. Further, we cannot ignore the provisions of Section 168 of the Act, which provides that on receipt of an application for compensation made under Section 166 of the Act, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an enquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of Section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. However, the Claims Tribunal has not conducted any enquiry in the manner indicated above. 6. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another, 2010 (12) Scale 265, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 11 of the report thus (only relevant portion is extracted below): ^ "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'. .........." 7. In view of the above, the Claims Tribunal should not have treated the claim petition as a civil suit and should not have dismissed the claim petition in the manner in which it has been dismissed. It was the duty of the Claims Tribunal to conduct a proper enquiry into the claim and find out the truth and the victims should not have been denied their legitimate claim. 8. In the instant case, the scriber of the F.1.R. as well as other witnesses shown by the police as eye-witnesses have not been examined. The Claims Tribunal recorded the evidence of one eye- witness, namely, Nehru (AW-2), but his evidence has also not been appreciated properly. In cross-examination, Nehru (AW-2) has stated that he had seen the incident, but when he reached at the spot, the tractor had run away and the deceased was lying dead on the earth. Interpretation thereof made by the Ciaims Tribunal was that when he reached at the spot, the tractor had run away, means he did not see the incident. If in the cross-examination, it would have come, the things would have been different. In this regard, an inference can be drawn that this witness was at some distance and saw the incident, but when he reached at the spot, in the meantime, the tractor ran away, as nothing had come in the cross-examination that this witness was traveling on some vehicle. Obviously, if he was walking on foot, some time might have been taken to reach at the spot. Therefore, it does not mean that he had not seen the incident. Hence, his statement was to be.scrutinized and it was open for the Claims Tribunal to put questions to this witness to find out the truth. 9. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Claims Tribunal. Therefore, we allow the miscellaneous appeal in part, set aside the impugned award and remit the matter back to the Claims Tribunal for decision afresh in the light of the observations made above. The Claims Tribunal shall conduct a proper enquiry into the claim and find out the truth and thereafter pass a fresh award. 10. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce further evidence, file documents or get the documents verified etc. and thereafter award shall be passed afresh. There shall be no order as to costs. —____„_— Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Gopal