IN THE HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. fc.l No.^^c> /2007 Appellante Claimants :1. ^y .^.^ /'.^ A' ^z. ^/ ^" BsM Smt. Shyama Bai, W/o late Dhansai Satnami, Aged about 30 Years, R/o Bataupali, Police Chowki- Kosir, P.8.- Sarangarh 2. Minor Ashok Kumar, S/o Dhansai Satnami, Aged about 12 years. : Minor Ku.Ashok Kumari, D/o Dhansai Satnami, Aged about 10 years 4. Minor Ku. DilBai, D/o Dhansai Satnami, Aged about 8 years E 5. Minor Ku. Jagriti, D/o Dhansai Satnami, Aged about 6 years 6, Minor Avinash, S/o Dhansai Satnami, Aged about 2 years Appellant no.2-6 through its Natural Guardians Mother Smt. Shyama Bai , W/o late Dhansai Satnami, , R/o Bataupali, Police Chowki- Kosir, P.S.- Sarangarh Respondents Versus ^" ^ :!.. Tikaram Sahu S/o-Sewakram Sahu ^.._ © Aged about 50 years R/o. Village Chatipali, P.S. & Tahsil . Sarangarh District Raigarh (C.G.) 2.4 Jagdish S/o- Dhauram Sahu ^' ^ 3. Muritram S/o Dhanu Sahu, Aged about-35 years, occupation- Krishi. 4.^, Gudalu S/o Bhogi Yadav, Aged about-35 years, occupation- Krishi. 5. Chandram S/o Janakram Sahu , Aged about-35 years, occupation- Krishi. Respondent no.2-5 of Residence of Village Chatipali, P.S. & Tahsil . Sarangarh District Raigarh (C.G.) ^ ^ Tambu alias Tamradhwaj S/o Dharamdas, Aged about 35 years, Occupation - Driver ,R/o Mahudodha , P.S. & Tahsil . Sarangarh District Raigarh (C.G.) .. United India Insurance Company , Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi and Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.530 of 2007 Appellants Versus Respondents Smt. Shyama Bai and others Tlkaram Sahu and others Present: Shri Amit Sharma, counsel for the appellants. Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for respondent No.7. None for other respondents. Miscellaneoys Appeat under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehictes Act ORAL ORDER (Passedonl 3th A(3ri!, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi, J.: Heard. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the award dated 28-3-2007 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sarangarh, District Raigarh in Claim Case No.1/2006. 3. Case of the claimants is that on the date of accident, i.e., 20-6-1997, in the morning, deceased Dhansai had gone to Village Lendhra in search of his buil. At about 10 AM, a tractor bearing registration No.MP 26 E 5654, connected with a trolley, being driven \ by non-claimant 'No.6 Tambu alias Tamradhwaj rashly and negligently, dashed thfe deceased near Lendhra Canal. As a result of the accident, the deceased died on the spot. The incident was ^y3^ ,^^^ ^A j ^. '^ reported to the Police Chowki Koseer. The claimants, i.e., wife and minor children of the deceased preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.7,08,000/-. 4 . The Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim of the claimants. 5. The claim petition was dismissed on the ground that the documents were not made available regarding the registration and ownership of the tractor. The Claims Tribunal should have summoned the police record to ascertain as towho was the owner of the tractor by which the accident was caused. The Claims Tribunal should have conducted a proper enquiry into the claim. 6. It has been provided in Rule. 226 of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Motor 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 OIF, 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 .^'.^,"1^ .r^'"1'!:.. ^ ^'.,^^'i%^is^sfe. 1i '^ '"y^ ?3V:%^-^ ^J^ just. However, the Claims Tribunal has not conducted any enquiry in the manner indicated above. 7. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another, 2010 (12) Scale 265, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 1 1 of the report thus (only relevant portion is extracted below): "11. The Tribunal shoutd 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'. .........." 8. 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 cdnduct a proper enquiry into the claim and find out the truth and the victims should not have been denied their legitimate claim. 9. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration at the end of theClaims Tribunal. 10. Accordingiy, we allow the miscellaneous appeal in part, set aside the impugne^ award and remit the matter back to the Claims tribunal for decisioh afresh in the light of the observations made 0 / '^•^^•^ :^ above. Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 10 Mav, 2011. 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^hall be no order as to costs. —— Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Gopal Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge