....-^s^ ^:"^.J^^"": ifl <»•»'"> shima Sahu, S/o. Pargan S bout 16 years, Minor, itural guardian.-'father Par ;ed about 45 years, S, ;ahu, R/o, Viliage-! 'hrough (C.G.) ihuneshwar Dewangan, aged about 35 years, Occupation-Driver, Mini 1511 Dewangan, Khorbahara Dewangan, aged. about -s, Oceupation-Owner, o / Padumtara, P.S. Lalbag, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Narendra Kumar Dewangan, S/o. Dewangan, aged about 27 /^" MO.C.G.07-D/3934,. R./o. VINage Boierdih, Post Dumardih Khurd, P.S. Laibag, Tahsil and District /-" Dewangan, aged about 32 years, Occupation-Owner, Tractor C.G.07- D/3934 and 3935, R/o. viiiage Shikaritoia, District R( iranch Manaqer, Orientai Insurance Company Limlted, Branch Office, Power House Bhiiai, Distrlct Durg ^ i-.U. ^ E -/ ^) VALUATION OF THE _PRESENT APPEAL Rs.7,40,000/- Nil Rs.7,40,000/- dBfafit tiaB&iirirtBU HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. (C) No. 92 of2009 Appellant Bhiaia Sahu Versus Respondents Mahendra Kumar Dewangan 85 others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHJCLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I. M. Quddusi 8s Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri Rakesh Sahu and Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocates for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 & 2. None for the respondents No. 3 to 5. ORDER (Oral) (, Passed on this 14ih day of March, 2011 ) Per I. M. .Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the injured/claimant against the impugned award dated 4th October, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claiins Tribunal, Rajnandgaon in Claim Case No. 38/2007, dismissing the claim petition. 2. The, brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 15.2.2006claimant (Bhima Sahu), aged about 16 years was going to Navagaon from village Baghera along with his friend Eknath on a two-wheeler as a pillion rider. Near Mudhipar railway crossing at about 5.00 p.m. in the evening a minidoor, bearing registration No. C.G. 07-C/1511, which was being driven in a negligent manner by the non-applicant No.l, hit the two-wheeler as a result of which the claimant and his friend Eknath fallen down. When the claimant was lying on the earth ^ as he fell down from the two-wheeler, his left leg came under the rear wheel of the tractor-trolley, bearing registration No. C.G. 07-D 3934 and 3935, which was being driven by the non- applicant No.3 in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of that accident the injured/clairaant got fracture. The matter was reported to the police where offence was registered against both the drivers of the minidoor and tractor- trolley i.e. the non-applicants No. 1 and 3. The claimant filed a claim petition under Seedon 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total coinpensation of Rs. 7,40,000/- under various heads on the submissions that the claimant had taken treatment from 15.2.2006 to 17.7.2006 in District Hospital, Durg as wel'. as treatment from private doctors. He was admitted in the hospital from 8.1.2007 to 9.1.2007 for operation and the injurcd/claimant got permanent disability due to the above accident. Learned Claims Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record held thfit the claimant is entitled for an award of compensation of Rs. ^0,667/- but as the claimant has failed to prove that the accident occurred by the offending vehicles, the claiin petition has beeh dismissed. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the lower Court record and found that there was MLC of the claiinant/appellant injured at 4.00 p.m. on 15.2.2006 i.e. the date of the accident and in the MLC, 'RTA' has been mentioned i.e. Road Traffic Aecident. Therefore, since the MLC was done, the intimation should have been sent by the hospital to the police and the information under Section 154 of the Sst^ (^ ^/ Code of Criniinal Procedure, 1973 should have been recorded by the police but due to absence of such information the victim should not be a sufferer. 7. The raedical board has issued a certificate of permanent disability to the extent of 50% to the appellant/injured with the remark that the same is not likely to improve. 8. Before proceeding further it is necessary to peruse the relevant provisions of law, which are quoted herein below i.e. Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. " 169. Procedure and powers of Claiins Tribunals. - (1) In holding any inquiiy under section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such suinmaiy procedure as it thinks fit. (2) The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil 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 other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purpQses of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (3) Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, the Claims Tribunal may, for the purpose of adjudicating upon any claim for compensation, choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of and matter relevant to the inquiry to assist it in holding fhe inquiry." 226. OBTAINING OF INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR AWARDING COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 40-. The Claims Tribunal shall obtain whatever information and documents which may be found necessary from the police, Medical and other authorities and proceed to •'.s?.'; '£' award the claiin whether the parties who were given notice, appear or not, on the appointed date. 9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kuniar Vs.Ajay Kunaar fi6 another { 2010 (12) SCALE} in para 11 has held that "The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence ts tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular the extent ofpermanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 ofthe 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 oftruth who is required to 'hold an enquiry into the claim' for determining the 'just com.pensation'. The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the 'just compensatwn'" 10. The instant case is also a peculiar case in the sense that the driver of the offending vehicte has pleaded guilty in the criminal Court in the case registered against him under Sections 279 and 338 of the I.P.C. in the police station Somani at Crime No. 107/2003. Therefore, in this case there should not be so much relevance regarding the date of recording the report by the police. 11. In view of the above this Court is of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal has not conducted proper enquiiy which was on its shoulder therefore we have no other way except to remit the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh decision. 12. For the reasons stated herein above, we allow this appeal in part, set-aside the impugned award dated 4th October, 2008 and remit back the matter to the Tribunal for decision afresh. ' No order as to costs. r 13. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce further evidence again in support of their pleadings and may file further documents and get the documents verified etc. Thereafter, the decision shall be inade by the Tribunal on merits. 14. The lower Courts record shall be sent back forthwith. 15. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal concerned on 13tllApril,2011. 'tC.'A^a SA'-.. _. l.M.Q"ddusl Judge .*VJl ^^a^e Thakur