^rW^t^ APPELLANT IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C) No.- 'yAq l^bn^^^ ,r. 'OWmw :- ^THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, BILASPUR, INFRONT OF OF RAJIV PLAZA, BUS STAND, BILASPUR, TAPISIL «& DISTRICT - BILASPUR C.G. Vrs. /"XESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS ^- •'-> ^ SMT. MEENA BAGHEL W/0 LATE HARISII CHANDRA BAGHEL, AGE 22 YRS., KU. ANJALI BAGHEL D/0 HARISH CHANDRA BAGHEL LATE ^ 4. y .••' y\..^\ ^•- JETHU BAGHEL S/0 BADAKU BAGHEL, AGE 60 YRS., DHANANJAY BAGHEL S/0 LATE HARISH CHANDRA BAGHEL, AGE 03 MONTHS RESPONDENT N0.- 2 «& 4 MINOR THROUGH GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. MEENA BAGHEL, ALL RESIDENT OF GAJARA CHOWK (LOCO KHOLI) TARBAHAR, THANA- TARBAHAR, TAHSIL & DISTRICT - BILASPUR C.G. RESPONDENTS/NON-APPLICANTS :- 6. s 7..,. BASHIR AHMAD S/0 SHRI HABIB KHAN, AGE 30 YRS., RESIDENT OF MANENDRAGARH, DISTRICT - KOREA PRESENT ADDRESS- NEAR TO TARBAHAR MASZID, BILASPUR, TAH. «& DISTRICT- BILASPUR C.G. SHRI MOHAMMAD NAVED S/0 SHRI HAZI MOHAMMAD NAFIZ , RESIDENT OF LINKROAD, BUKHARI TYRES, MITRA VIHAR, BILASPUR, TAH. & DISTRICT- BILASPUR C.G. ..2.. s ..2.. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 ,^^-^"^ 4/ 1 ^ '% ^ "%1 's^.l^^ '^®^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATriS6AftH AT BILASPUR &iyiSIONB€NCH: MON'BLE MR. I.M.OU&&USI & HON'BLE MR.B^LAM MINH^OL/DM.NL^I Appellant Respondents M.A. (Cl No.787/2008 The Oriental Insurance Co, Ltd. \/s Smt. Meena Ba^hel & others Presenti Mr. Sudhir Agarwal, Advocate for the appeliant. Even in the sscond call none appeared on behaif of the respondents. ORDER (OraD (26th Juiy, 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appellant-Insurance Company has filed this miscelloneous cppeal against the award dated 17.12.2007 passed by the (earned 1st Additional AAotor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur {CG) (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.63/2007. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the claimants, who arewidow, children and father of the deceased, have filed a claim cpplication ynder Section 166 of the Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the death of deceased Harish Chandra Baghel in the motor accident which took place on 18.12.2006 at about 9.20 a.m. when the motor cycle of -t+ie deceased was dashed by the offending vehicle i.e. tanker bearing registration number C610-A-8148 on account of rash and negligent drivin9 by the driver of said vehicle. The claimants have claimed compensation on the ground that the deceased was the sole earning member in the family and they were dependent on his earnings, 4. TTie Claims Tribunal vide impugned award allowed claim of the ckximants on the ground, awarded a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- and fastened liability on the cypelloint herein to pay the compensation, 5. Learned counsel for the flppellant-Insurance Company has submitted ^iat though the accident has taken place at 9.20 a.m., but no eyewitness has been examined by the claimants. He further argued that in absence of any ^ '^•'•^. '•^''': ^ .^/ ^,.s'<'^^ ^^^•••- INNN— proof regarding negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the Claims Tribunal should have awarded compensation on the basis of contributory negligence. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the cppellant. We have also perused the records of the Cfoims Tribunal- 7, On perusal of the record, it is revealed that the police after completion of investigation have filed the charge sheet under Sectlon 173 of Cr.P.C. in which names of 1+ie witnesses have been shown. 8. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that on receipt of application for compensation, the Claims Tribunal shall hold an inquiry into 1+ie 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, foltow such summary procedure as it thinks fit, Jhe Claims TrJbund shall have 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 and for such oltier purposes as moy be prescribed and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Cr.P.C. Besides this, in ftule 226 of the Motor Vehicle ftules, 1994 also it has been provided that the Claims Tribunal shall conduct enquiry to ascertain the fact. - 9. In view of above, it is clear that intention of the legislature is to provide just and legitimate compensation to the claimcints of the deceased or to the injured, as the axse may, and therefore the provision for conducting enquiry by the Claims Tribunal to find out 1+ie truth has been inserted in the Act, 1988. Therefore, in the instant case the Claims Tribunal should not have treated the claim application filed under the provisionsof 1+»e Act, 1988 as a civil suit ouTid it was bounden duty of the Claims Tribunal to conduct proper enquiry indudmg issuing direction to Ki®claimants to file process for summoning the witnesses or should have summoned 1+ie witnesses ^uo motu with an intention to find out the tru-rti regarding accident, vehicle & driver of vehicle involved in the accident. For the aforesaid view we are suoDorted ^ 1»»^ by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 1+ie matter of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & another reported in 2010 (12) SCAUE 26S wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court ho^ held that n^^the Tribuiwf ^iould nat be a silent spectatar when medical eyidence is tenderedl in regard ta fhe mjuries and ifseir effecf inpartfcular the extent afpermanent disabiUty. Sectian^ 168 ancf 169 of the Act make it eviefent that iffe Tribunal daes nat function as a neutral umpfre as in a civil suif but as an active explorer cysd seeker af truth who is required ta 'halcfan enquiry into the claim' far determining tfte 'just compensation'. The Tribunaf ^hould Iherefore take an Qctive rote to c^certain the Irue and carrect pa^itian sa that it can as^es^ the 'just campensation^...„/' tO.For the foregoing reasons, we allow 1+ie oppeal in part, set aside the impugned award andremit the matt-er back to 1+ie Claims Tribunal for taking decision afresh in Jight of observations made in this order including 1+ie question of contrjbutory negligence. Needless to mention that the Claims Tribunal shall provide opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, and amend the pleadings or to file documents or verify the documents atready filed etc. TTie Claims Tribunal shallalso issue notices to the respondents concerned, who are not present before 1+ils Court today- 11. The amount, which has already been deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company ond yet not disbursed to the claimants, diall not be either refunded to the appellant or disbursed to the claimants and it shall be kept in a fixed deposit scheme of a nationalized bank till -t+ie decision is taken afresh by the Ctaims Tribunal. 12.The appellont is dirccted to cppear before the Claims Tribunal concerned on 24th Au^ust. 2011. The Registry is directed to trwismit record of the Ctaims Tribunal concerned without further delay. No order as to costs, Roshan/- Sd/- I.M-Quddusi Judge. Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge /