IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M f} Appeiiant X? Versus (Non-Apphcants Respondents f 6% s K) H!‘ 2/9 ‘ + W/o Guruvmder Smgh @ Rana, I R/ o Near Garder Budge, Dallirajhara, Dist : Durg—(C.G.) The National insurance Company Ltd Through e Branch Manager Guru‘nak Chowk Jagdalpur D1st Bastar—(C G) t. The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd Through i Mrs. ’Vandana Auto, Vandana House, G E Road’ Ralpur, rDi‘st : Raipur § (C G) Surendra ‘Kumar Raolo S/o Late Govmd Raolo R/o Bhllal Sector — 4 Street No 5 Quarter No 7( ) / MISC. APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. ‘ 3 // ‘shor Chandra Raolo s S/o Late Govind Raolo, Aged about 28 years, R/o Sector—4, Bhiiaj, Dist : Durg-(C.G.) Smt Jaspal Kour / / MANo ?m [200 \j HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT’ BILASPUR D.B.: Hon’ble Shri Justice l.M. Quddusi and Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant‘Kumar Mishra Miscellaneous Appeal No.700 of 2005 Shri Santosh Bharat counsel for the appellant Shri R N Jha counse! for respondent No 1 Shri G V K Rao counsel for respondent No 2 Shn S S Rajput counsel for respondent No 3 None for respondent No 4 tnough served Miscellaneous Appeal under Sectiorr 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act r . / / ORAL ORDER (Passed on 11m Aprn 2011) PerlM QudduSI J Heard. 2. This ‘appeal has been preferred by the claimant Kishor‘ Chandra Raolo against‘the award‘dated 28-4-2005 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal; Bastar at Jagdalpur in Claim Case No.74/2004; ~ 3. B‘riefrfacts of the case, according to the claimant, are thatwOn the date of accident, i.e., 8-11-2002, the claimant accompanied‘bw J his friend Jaiprakash was coming from Bhilai to Jagdalpur on his‘: i nbrother Surendra Kumar Raolo’s motor cycle Bajaj Boxer bearing: l ‘ registration No CG O4 ZM 2494 At that time a truck bearingi i registration No CG O7 ZC 2845 was parked in the middle of the road i Appenant ’Kishor Chandra Raolo ‘ versus Respondents Smt. Jaspal Kour and others Present El? near Asna Dhaba on N.H.-43 ROad Without putting the indicator and parking lights of the truck on. Due to negligent parking of the truck, the motor cycle dashed with it. vAs a result of the accident, the ciaimant sustained grievous injuries on his person. The incident was reported to the Police Station Jagdaipur. The ciaimant preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/—. 2 5. The Claims Tribunal has indicated in the impugned award that the spot map was not available on record, but we have perused the record of the Claims Tribunal and found that the spot map was very 7 well aVailable on record and according to the spot map prepared by ,, the investigating‘ofticer,’ the position of the Dhaba has been shown at place B whereas the place of accident is just on the opposite side of the Dhaba. In the statement of NAW—1 Dhansingh, who. at the time of accrdent was working In the Dhaba it has come that the ‘ > driver and cleaner of the truck were taking food In the Dhaba and the truck Was parked offsrde the road, but the spot map does not ' support this statement. The position ofthe truck and the accident has been shown on the road though on one side. Further, the scriber of the F.I.R. was not summoned by the Claims Tribunal. His statement was not recorded. The claim petition was proceeded with as if the same was a civil suit. 4. ' TheClaims Tribunal dismissed the claim ofthe claimant. ~ 6. It has been provrded In Rule 226-of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattrsgarh Motor Vehicles Rules 1994 that the Claims o 3 Tribunal shall obtain whatever information and documents which may be found necessary from the police, medicai 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 1‘66 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. 7. ln Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar a‘ndwanother, 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. ThevTribunal 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’. .......... n Gopal @ 8. m view of the above, the Claims Tribunal should not have treated the claim petition aS'a 'civii suit'and should not have dismiséed 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 victim should not have been denied his legitimate claim. 4 9. Therefore, the' matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Claim‘s’Tribunai. 10. Accordingly, we allow the miscellaneous appeal in part, set ’ ’ aside the impugned award and remit the matter back to the Claims Tribunal for decision afresh. Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent ' back. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 10th May 2011. Needless to mention that the‘parties shall be allowed to amend, their pleadings. adduce further evidence. tile documents or get the documents verified etc. and thereafter award shallvbe passed afresh. There shall be no order as to costs. Sdl- l.M.Qudclusi H J Judge