c f\^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR .3^. Ojvisioji APPELLANT ^ CLAIMANT ,^... ^<".^r . ^^^^^" ^y" .....•""; ^^••" M.A.(C.) No....^>.^..../2010 (D.B.) ^" RE^PONDENTS : Mir Aathar Ali, aged about 23 years, S/o Late Bakar Ali @ M.N.Husain, R/o LIG-485, Sector-1, D.D. Nagar, Raipur Police Station D.D. Nagar, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Deepak Gour S/o Atma Ram Gour, R/o Emami Private Limited, behind of Mata Garage Pandri Tarai, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) (Driver & Owner of alleged vehicel Maruti Car bearing registration C.G. 04- HA/3019. Divisional Manager The New Indian Insurance Company Limited, Madina building Raipur Tahsil 85 District Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer of alleged vehicel Maruti Car bearing registration C.G. 04-HA/3019. Policy No. 40126589 Limitation date 22/11/2007 to 21/11/2008 \^-' MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988. / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILA8PUR DB: HON*BLE I.M. QUDDU8I & HON»BLEPRA8HANT KUMAR MI8HRA, JJ M. A. (Cl. No. 956 OP 2010 Vs. APPBAL UNDBR SBCTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VBHICLBS ACT. 1988 APPEARANCB Mr. C. R. Sahu, counsel for the appeUant Mr. Raj Awasfbi, counsel for respondent 2. ORDER (ORAL) (Oa.G3.2Dll) Per I.M. QUDDUSI. J 1. This appeal has been filed by fhe claimant agaiast fhe impugned award dated 22,6.2010 passed by VII Addl. Motor Accideut Clauixs Tnbunal, Raipur, ia Claim Case No.38/2009 dismissmg the claim petition. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the version of fhe claimaat are fhat at about 5 a.m. on 23.05.2008 mother of the claimaat Siat Bibijaa M.N, Beguin was goiag froin Raipur to Jagdalpur in Maruti Car bearing Reg. No. C.G.04-H.A/3019. On the way at KeshkaA vatley (Ghaii), fhe said vehicle which was beiag driven by respondent no. 1 ia a rash aiid negligent inaaner fell down ia fhe Ghati, as a result of which M.N. Beguin sustamed serious iajuries on her head, haads, leg aad ofher parts of fhe body. She was admitted ia Raaia Krishna Hospital, Raipiir aad durmg fhe course of treatment shed died on 05.06.2008 on accoiuit of the mjuries APPELLANT Mir Aaftiar AIl RBSPONDBNTS Deepak Grour aad aaofher .^'^^ ••^ i' ^....••^^^ 1 I. 'W-% j 'V •"^1^ '^•s^Sy sustaiaed by her ia fhe said accident. At the Ume of accident, the deceased was aged about 60 years aad was earaiag Rs.3000/- per nionth by stitchiag, embroidexy and knittmg. The clamiaat beiag dependents/legal representative ofthe deceased has made clami for the death offhe deceased to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs. 3. The leamed clamis Tribunal held that fhe ofifendiag vehicle was involved in fhe accident but her death was not as a reszilt of fhe accident aad fherefore fhe claimaat is not entitled to aay compensation aad dismissed fhe clami of fhe appeUan^t 4. In M,L.C. report given by Dr. N.K. Goyal, Medical Ofi&cer, Keshkal, it was shown that one of fhe injuries was forehead mjury aad fhere was aii advice of stitching aad dressiag and further if fhe patient beconies iniconscious fhen C.T. Scaa be done for head. However, fhe docuinents of Rama Kdshna Care Hospital, Raipur shows fhat fhe deceased was given treataient as mdoor patient aad a BiU of Rs.1,02,577/- was raised aad fhe deceased died m fhat hospital on 05.06,2008. Therefore, it is clear fhat she died while getting contmuous treataient mimediately wiftiia a few days of fhe accident. For fhe above reasons, it caoiiot be said that this head injury was a sunple mjuiy ia view of fhe huge aoiount of expenditure iacurred in. treatoffient which was not possible ia case ofsimple mjury. The Tribunal ought to have conducted an enquiiy on those poiats but it has not been done. 5. It has been provided ia Rule 226 of C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 that the Claims Tribunal shall obtaia whatever 1 -^? •^ ..^.^ "^. ^ -rt;X ty ^"'^ .1 ,.JJ p^ mformation aad documents which may be fomid necessary froni fhe poUce, mLedical aad other authorities aad proceed to award fhe clami whefher fhe parties who were given notice, appear or not, on fhe appoiated date. Furfher we caanot ignore fhe provisions ofsectionl68 offhe MotorVehicles Act, 1988 which provides that on receipt of aa application for coinpensation made u/s 166, fhe Clainis Tribunal shaU afler giviag fhe parties (iacludiag fhe insurer) an opportunity of beiag heard, hold aa iaquiry mto the claun aad subject to fhe provisions of section 162 may make aa award determinuig the ainount of conipensation which appears to it to be just. However, fhe Tribunal has not conducted aay enqiiiry ia the inaaner indicated above, 6. Hon^ble the Supreme Court m Raj Kumar -vs- AJay Kumar and another decided on 18th October, 2010 and reported ia IV (2010) Accident & Compensation Cases 815 (SC) held fhat the Tnbunal should not be a silent spectator when inedical evidence is tendered ia regard to the injiuies aad their efifect, Sections 168 and 169 of fhe Act niake it evident that fhe Tribixaal does not functiou as a neutral umpire as m a civU suit, but as aa active explorer aad seeker of trufh who is required to 'hold aa iaquiiy iato fhe clauii' for detennming fhe just couipensation'. The Tribunal shoiild therefore take an active role to ascertaia fhe ta-ue aad correct position so fhat it caa assess fhe 'just conipensation". 7. In view of fhe above, fhe Tnbunal should have suininoned ftie niedical record of Rama Krishna Hospital aad also the xaedical officer conceraed to enquire iato cause of ftie death of fhe deceased ia the hospital whUe getting treatinent, Learaed counsel for the respondent Insuraace Conipany has submitted tiiat no postoaiortem report was fUed. We are of fhe opiaion fhat ia case fhe Tribunal would have conducted a proper enquiry, a clear position would einerge to adjudicate as to whefher fhe claimant was entitied to get coinpensation or not aad ifentitied fhen upto what extent. 8. In view of fhe above facts aad circumstances, we are of the opiaion fhat it is a fit case to reniit the matter back to fhe Tribunal for decision afresh. 9. Hence, we allow this appeal ta part; set aside fhe award dated 22.06.2010 and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for decision afresh. As discussed above, fhe Tribunal shaU conduct enquiry under riile 226 of C.G, Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 which provides that fhe Clainis Tribunal shaU obtaia whatever iaformation ajid docuinents which raay be found necessary, Further the parties shall be aUowed to ainend fhe pleadiags, adduce further evidence, ifaay, file fhe docuxnents or get fhe docuinents venfied etc., and thereafter the Tribunal shaU decide fhe clami petition afresh 'at the earUest ia Ught of fhe observrations niade herein above. The parties shaU appear before fhe Tribunal on 07th of April. 2011. The records of the Tribunal shall be sent back wifhout further delay. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Rao