V. h- ,A IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR MISC. APPEAL FC1 N0. 3 &^ J^fS^} ^ou >^ MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR APPELLANT JNSURER RESPONDENTS )WNER DRIVER V- ^ CLAIMANTS y ^ VEHICLES ACT, 1988 ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Company Limited, Registered office: ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra- Kurla, Complex, Mumbai, 4000 51, through its Legal Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Lal Ganga Shopping Ma-11, 3rd Floor, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS Baratu Ram Chandel, S/o Jaitaram Cha^del, Manharan Kenwat, aged about 29 years, S/o Shri Kejau Kenwat, Both are R/o village - Jaroundha, chowki - Pachpedi, P.S. 85 Tahsil - Masturi, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Smt. Ahilya Bai Patel aged about 35 ye^rs, Wd/o Bundru @ Ranger Patel Kumari Santoshi Patel, aged about 07 years, Kumari Komal Pate, aged about 05 years :, Kumari Chandramati Patel, aged about 06 months, Respondents/Claimants No. 4 to 6 are D/o Late Bundru @ Ranger Patel being minor represented though mother Smt. Ahilya Bai Patel /respondent no. 3, Wd/o Bundru Patel'@ Ranger Patel, Caste - Marar (Patel), All R/o village - Hardi, Post 8& P.^. -Lawan, Tahsil - Balpdabazar, Dis^ict - Raipur (C.G.) ^5. APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 4,26,000/- HIGH COURT OP CHHATTI8<aARH. BILASPUR DB: Hon»bleI. M. QUDDUSI <fe Hoa*ble G. MINHAJUDDIW, JJ M.A(Ct. No.306/2011 APPBLLANT: RBSPONDBNTS: ICICI Lombanl Qeneral Insurance Compaiiy Limited Vs. Baratai Raca and ofhers MISC. APPEAL UIVDER SBCTION 173 OF__THB MOTOR VEHICLBS ACT. 1988 Appearance: ; Mr. Saurabh Shanna, coitcusel for fhe appeUant. Mr. Suresh Pandey, counsel for respondents 1 & 2. Per I.M. OUDDUSI. J. ORAL ORDER (29.06.2011) 1. This appeal has been filed by fhe Insurance Company against the impugaed award dated 28th September, 2010 passed by fhe Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Bilaspur, (C.G) in Claim Case No. 12/2010 alleging that the insurance poUcy was a fake one. 2. Brief facts of fhe case as per the version of claimants arc that on 25.07.2009 deceased Ranger Patel along-with his coUeague Bisahuwa was goiag to ViUage Manwa Chowkl Pachpedi fix>m his viUage Hardi by driviag motorcycle. At fhat time, offendiag Tractor beanng Regn. No. C.G. 10- D/3304 & Trolley No. C.G.10-D/3298 aUegedly driven by respondent no.2 ia a rash and negligent manaer dashed ttie motorcycle fix>m opposite direction, as a result of which, , Ranger Patel died on the spot. At fhe time pf accident, fhe deceased was aged ia betwe^ii 35 aad 40 years. He was ^workiag as a headL xnason and was earaiag Rs.4500/- per monfhL.The claimaats bemg dependents/legal representatives have filed claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles for .-^ y:-.. t r'^'i B ..^// u fhe award of total compensation of Rs.17,79,000/- on various heads. 3. Learaed Claims Tribunal having regard to fhe facts situation has awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,26,000/- which the claimants are entitled to receive froisi the appeUaat aad respondents 1 & 2 j'ointly or severaUy holdiag fhat fhe oflfendiag Tractor Trolley was involved ia fhe accident m. which Raager Patel died and fhere was no breach of poUcy conditions. 4, We have heard learaed coiuisel for fhe parties aad have also goue fhrough the records offhe Tribunal. 5. Learaed counsel for tfae appeUaat submits that the iasuraace poMcy placed on record was fake one and it was not issued by fhe appellaat Insurance Company ia respect of the vehicle ia questton. < ^ 6. In case it is aHeged fhat the poUcy is fedse, fhe iasuraiice Coinpany has right to prove fhe same by docuinents aad fhe Claitns Tnbunal should take precaution and gnant Uberty to the Insiirance Compaay to prove its case ia support of documents. It appears fhat the Tribuaal has not conducted any enquiry to ascertam the veracity offhe Insuraace PoMcy as provided m sections 168 & 169 offhe Motor Vehicles Aet^ 1988 add Rule 226 of the of C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, Further^ in fhe case of Raj Kwwwr -vs- AJay Kumwr <and another decided on 18th October, 2010 aad rcported ia FV (2010) Aeddent & Conywnsatton Cftses 81S fSX) Hon^ble the Apex Court held that the clgdm petition should not be trcated as a civil suit and it is the duly of the Tribiinal to conduct an enquuy. In para 11 of fhe said case, it has been further held (hat Sections 168 aad 169 ofthe Act make it evident fhat fhe Tribunal does not function as a neutral i iimpire as in. a civU suit, but as aa active explorer aad seeker oftorufh who is requircd to <hold aa inquify uito fhe claim' for determiaiag fhe just compensation>. The Tnbunal should fherefore take aa active role to ascertaia the true and correct position so fhat it caa assess fhe ^just cdmpensation^ ^^3^, ,^w^, . ""^'•••. *•• ..-/' ^y.'^ , ^. f -: ^l 7. Thereforc, fhe matter requires reconsideration at the end of fhe Tribunal. Hence, we allow this appeal ia part and remit fhe matter back to the Tribunal for decision afi-esh m tiie light ofthe obseryatlons made hereiaabove. 8. Needless to mention that fhe pardes shafl be allowed to amend the pleadmgs, adduce fiirtlier evideace, file documents or get the documents verified etc., and then after conductmg enquiiy fhe Tribiiaal shaU take the decisioxi afresh, The parties shall appear before the Tribttaal on 27tb Julv, 2011. The rccords of the Tribuiial shaU be sexit back f forthwith. 9, The amount which has alrcady d^posited by fhe Insurance Coinpao.y shaU reiaaia ia fixed deposit tiU fresh decision is taken by the Tribunal. lOo In the result, the appeal is allov^ed io?part. No oxder as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao