IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.AJClNo^ r^ s / 2010 APPELLANT CLABtANT A^ .^>.V-"'"1 ^... J ^- ^- ^^y »'• .-J8 v<& -,-,»• VERSUS RESPONDENTS : ^-. ^^2' 3. MEMO OF APPEALJJ llvls.ion Sm.t. Kamla W/o Late Jammu, 25 years Sampat S/o Late Bondku, 50 yrs, Ku.Meena D/o Late Jammu, 12 yrs, Govind S/o Late Jammu, 9 yrs Pratima D/o Late Jammu, 6 yrs Appellant no.3 to 6 minors through their mother and natural guardian appellant no.l Smt. Kamla, All R/o ViU.BhadisGaon, P.S. - Frezarpur, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar-(C.G.) Rakesh Vishwakarma, S/o Shiv Shanker Vishwakarma, 35 yrs, R/o Moti Talab Para, Rajbada Parisar, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar- (C.G.) Manoj Smgh, S/o Ramji Singh, R/o Dongripara, Frezarpur, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar-(C.G.) The National Ins.Co.Ltd., Through: Branch Manager, Near R.M.S. Office, Above Centa-al Bank, 1st Floor, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar-(C.G.) '173 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT <«>I;''"a.'-*'':i^.x !t' .f3^, HICTtCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: HON'BLE I. M. QUDDUSI Ss HON'BLE G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ M.AtCLNp. 536/2010 Siut. Kamla aad others Vs. Rakesh Vishwakanua & others RESPOKDEN'ra: MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTQRVEHICLBS ACT, 1988 Mr. PrafuU Bharat, counsel for fhe appeUants. Mr. G.V.K. Rao, counsel for the respondent no.3. ORAL ORDBR PCTL LM. OUDDUSI, J, 1. This appeal has been ffled bv fhe Claimaats aeainst the impugned order dated 23.02.2010 passed by ftie III Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribuaal, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G) ia Claim. Case No.307/2009 rejectmg the claim ofthe appeUants. 2. The claiaiaats beiug legal representatives/dependents of the deceased Jammu have filed claiia petition u/s 166 & 140(1) of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for tlie award of a total compensation ofRs.23,62,000/- on various heads aUeging fhat fhe deceased was eiuployed ia Vishwakanna Autoinobiles as inechanic. On 30.07.2008, he was assigned the work ofinaking bodv to a new Truck bv his einplover. The sald truck was owned by respondent no.2, driven by respondent no. 1 aad was insured with respondent no.3. When fhe deceased was doiag the work under the truck ui the garage, non-applicant No. 1 has f*s 1. f' . •£661 'sapiy gpiqsA-io^o]ft[ qre3stn^t[qo »vJ° 9SE; spia ptre 886T '^V sapTqaA -to^o^ STR jo Qg-i "ig 891 STiop^oag ui papiAard SB ipnjj, STO Tire^JtaosB 01 A.imbaa AIB 8uponpu:o3 pue aonapiAa STiipiiooai ^noipTAv TIIIBIO stp passTcasTp ABA ^qSiai^s tBTmquj, 3Tp ^eip sjesddB ^i -spruj, aip jspun s}n3TOi3jnsB3ni Siip[Bi SBA pasBaoap aip 31"!^ sioTqaA sip J3AO UKX OqM 'T:-OU l.TIBOIlddB-TIOH JO •|JBd 3Tp UO 30a38l{83U SBM ajaip pue spiqaA .[o^om: jo asn aq^ Suunp 33B{d ^oo^ ^uappoB 3Tp 'TIOFtBOIlddB 3Tp UI 3pBUI SUOpB83{{e 31^ O^ SuTpIOOOB SB^OU: jo 3{qBiitBiatBm: sBAt aor)Ti.3(I TCirep 3Tp J3Tp3qM PTBS 3q l.OTCOBO ft 'aSKf.S STCR ^B '33H3H 'STiop u33q ^ou SBq qoiqA H3Al8 U33q 3ABT[ p]noqs sSuipug aqi Apio naip piie pspiooaj uaaq 3ABq p^noqs 30H3piA3 Stp ye jo ^sjg 'aiojsjaqj^ 'S^TIBTIITBP sip jo aseo 3Tp ^OU 8BA STTp ^Tiq p3S13303p aTp HO •[I3J II pTIB 3pTC[3A 31]^ taOJJ P3AOUI3J SBM 3(3Bp ^BTp J3pJO S^I UI paUOfl.HSUI 8Bq IBUnqT.IJ, aqjL •spiqaA pTBS 3Tp o^. ^poq jo HOTtOiLqsaoo joj aSB-reg 3Tp. III £f[3TX[3A 3Tp JSpUn S^U:3TO:aiTlSB3T[r Sup[B^ pTIB §TIp(J:OA SBM pasBsoap aip usqA apyqsA STO pasn peq j:3AU:a 3to ^BTp. SlUBIIItBp JO 3SB3 3Ip SBAl ~(i ^nq 33®^oiiqnd B STBM. agiaiBg fBV^ punqujL 3lp Aq ppq ussq s^q ^i -aoaapiAa AUB glilpiooaj inoipu& uopBOTiddB sip ui s^aBmreio avg. ^q paaoi^tisTit s^o^j 3Tp 01 ^UaiSJjTp pJBASS pailSTldTIII 3Tp ui ^T ^Cq patBj-iea S^OBJ aip uo 3\EIBVm3pKBVa ^OQ SEA^ aOI^TtSd TIItBIO 3Tp ^BT:?. PT3T[ S^q ^BTinqUJL atp ^TR punoj pue piooay IJnoo jgAioq aTp pssTLiad 3ABq a^ •Tpaoiii jad -/O009'sa SUITIIBS SBA pae SJBSA 0£ ^noq^ pagesBdi p3SB303p 3Tp •'^TI3pT33B JO 3TITR 3Tp. ^.V 'P3TP PTtB S3UT1.S.UI 3J3A3S p3TnBisns niuiuep 'qoiqA jo ^nsai B se 'apiqaA 3Tp JSAO Tm-t •e <-!'--- 'S •fc-. ••-'.^ ^" In Rule 226 of C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 it has been provided that ftie Claiias Tribunal shall obtain whatever information aud docnments which uiay be found necessaiy froni the poUce, niedical aiid other auftiorities and proceed to award fhie claun whether the parties who were given notice, appear or not, on fhe appoiated date. Further we cannot ignore the provisions of sectlou 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides that- on receipt of an application for coinpensation inade u/s 166, fhe Clainis Tribunal shaU after ;iviag the parties (uicluding the insurer) au opportunity of being heard, hold aa iuquuy into the claim aiid subject to the provisions of section 162 niay inake au award determioing the aaiount ofcoiapensation which appears to it to be jusfc Further, ta the case ofRc^ Kumar -vs- ^ay Kusnar and dliother decided on 18th October, 2010 aad reported in IV (2010) Accident & Conipensafion Ccises SIS (SC), Hon'ble the Apex Court held that ftie claiin petition should not be treated as a civil suit and it is fhe duty of the Tribiuaal to conduct an enquity to ascertaiii the trufh. In the iastant case, fhe Tribiuial as au exploicr of trufh has not conducted aay enquiry. The claunants would be entitled to get the conipensation u/ s 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act only if fhe accident involviug the death or bodUy injuiy had arisen out of the use of fhe Biotor-vehicles as provided in section 165 (1) offhe Act. In view ofthe above discussion, we are of fhe opinion fhat the inatter reqiiires reconsideratioa at the end of the Tnbuiial. 4. Therefore, we allow fhis appeal, set aside fhe impugned order dated 23.02.2010 and remit t&e matter back to fhe Tribimal for B-'.p'^ffns'?'' -^' ,^~ k*^; Rao decision a&esh m. fhe l^ht ofabove observations. The Tribunal shall proceed to record fhe evidence aad conduct enqi.iiry as provided ia sections 168 & 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 aad Rule 226 ofthe Chhattisgarh MotorVehicles Rules, 1996. 5. Needless to mention th.at the parties shaU be atlowed to amend fhe pleadiags, adduce further evidence, file dociunents or get fhe docuuients verified etc., aad thereafter, the Tribunal shaU take fhe decision afresh. Tbe parties shall appear before the Tribuiial on 29th Septeinber, 2011. The recoids of fhe Tribuiial shaU be sent back without further delav. 6. In fhe resiUt, fhe appeal is aUowed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- I.M-Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ;i:l':-:!=—! ^^."A-y's^sn.sss-?^^