IN THE I-IIGH COURT OF CHHATTI.SGARH AT BILJ-iSPUR, M .A,NO. ..^^^.. ,OF 200 3 » is@i v©nel PELLM^TS t* ^^^' ^ ^.%"'" /•••^^ ^^ ^ 1^ smt, Nilima S aha? Wd/o* late AcviDid Saha» 23 yrs» 2* Ku* Ankita saha» D/o ,i.1ate jyrvind Sahai 4 years, Minor through t Natural Guardian and Mother app^NOi 1» Smt^ Nllima Saha,» 3^ NeeFkanth saha» S/o* Paresh Nath Saha,75 years< 4< s^t-<» Ashalata saha? W/o« Neelkanth Saha, 70 years, Ml R/O» Maitri sangh, Kumhar Para» Jagdalpur^ Distt, Bastar (chhattisgarh). VBR S U S RESPONDENTS i 'ON-APPLICANTS ^- l. Sudhir Kumar Shanna» S/Of Onipra3<ash sharma^ R/o* Kumharpara» Jagdalpuir» Distt^ Bastar (chhatfeisgar'h) , ^—,2<» Moharx panjigrahiy S/o^ G<».P.^-panigrahi"» R/ o t Kuinharp ar a^ J agdalpur » ^^S^ The New India Insuronce co*ltd, through ; Branoh Maaager? Neor Jhankar Tal]<ies» Jeypore Roadt Jagdalpur> Distt^ Basta^ MISCEL'LENOUS APPSAL U/S.173 QF TKE MOTOR VEH±C1,ESACT co'ntd*, ^ 2^^ . ^.^r^^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. No. 263 of 2003 Appellants Smt. Nilima Saha & others Versus Respondents Sudhir Kumar Sharma & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8s Hon'ble Shri G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shri Prafull Bharat, for the appellants. Shri Vishnu Kostha, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. None for the respondent No. 3. ORDER fOral) ( Passed on this 18th day of October, 2011 ) ^Per I. M. Quddusi, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants against the impugned award dated 13.2.2003, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baster, Jagdalpur in Claim Case No. 174/2001, € dismissing the claim petition. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the lower Court record as well as the findings given in the impugned award. Brieffacts, in nutshell, are that on 25.1.2001 deceased Ar^ind Kumar Saha was traveling from Dhamtari to Jagdalpur in the vehicle - Jeep, bearing registration No. M.P. 25-B/1644. On the way, due to rash and negligent driving of the non-applicanfc No.l (Sudhir Kumar Sharma) the Jeep was collided with an unknown Metadoor, thereby the Jeep turned turtle. In that accident Arvind Kumar Saha received grievous injuries and died on the spot. The claimants/dependents of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensafion ofRs. 60,60,OOO/- under various heads. Learned Claims Tribunal, having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record dismissed the claim petition holding that the 7. 8. ^ 9. 10. 11. 12. q^ claimants have failed to prove whether the accident was occurred as fhe Jeep in question was being driven in a rash and negligent manner or the cause of accident was due to collision ( ccr-c^^ ) of the Metadoor. On perusal of the record we have found that none of the eye witnesses to the accident have been examined by the Claims Tribunal. It was the boundened duty of the Claims Tribunal to conduct a proper enquiry and record the statements of the eyewitnesses and for that purpose the record of the criminal case should have been summoned byit. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumiar Vs, Ajay Kumar & another { 2010 (12) SCALE} in para 1 1 has held that "The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is 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 compensation\ In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal should not have treated the claim petition as a civil suit as it is the duty of the Tribunal to conduct an enquiry as provided in Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of the M.P./C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. For the reasons stated herein above, we allow this appeal in part, set-aside the impugned award dated 13.2.2003 and remit back the matter to the Tribunal for decision afresh in view of the observations made hereinabove. No order as to costs. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce fvrther evidence again in support oftheir pleadings and may file further documents and get the documents verified etc. Parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 30th November, 2011. The lower Courts record shall be sent back forthwith. Sd/- LM. Quddusi Judge Thakur Sd/- G. Mmhajuddin Judge