% L.EB .THEHIGH COURT OF AT Misc. Appeal (C) No,_ _}]_?^ , /2010 mitn Be%» Appellant ^laimant ^Aakash, aged about 10 years S/o Udyan. Bal, R/o Domanhill Collery Chirmiri, ugh ...^^ ^\ ^" ^ \Vfs.^ .^^'ahsil Khadgawa, Distt. Korea througl his natural Guardian father Udyan Bal k*5*' y ' S/o Late Shri Bankimchand aged about 40. years, R/o Domanhill Collery Chirmiri, Tahsil Khadgawa, Distt. Korea versus Respondents Driver Owner A. Mobin' Khan, aged about 24 years, R/o Chotiya Thana Korbi Dist. Korba 2.,... M/s Adarsh Bus Service No. 11-8066, R/o Near Kharsiya Naka, Thana and Tahsil Am.bikapur Distt, SargiAja 3--^- Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Itd. Branch Bilaspur ^^// A'4^^^. S1SCTIOK 1TS OF ACT ,^x''.;- '"^"^ ^ ,v {i^^-^^.^ •'^l£^ ^ I/ ^ ^-.. ^^<^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. (C)No. 1120 of 2010 Appellant Aakash Versus Respondents Mobin Khan & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I. M. Quddusi 85 Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the appellant/claimant. Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. None for the respondents No. 1 and 2. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 4th day ofApril, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant against the impugned award dated 30.8.2010 passed by the 3rd A,dditional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Manendragarh, District - Koria, in Claim Case No. 12/2009, dismissing the claim petition. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the papers available on record. The, brief facts, in nutshell, as projected by the claimant, are that the appellant/claimant (Akash), who was aged about 10 years, on 13.10.2008 along with his cousin Sapan Kumar Vishwas was going to Korba frcm Chirmiri by a bus, bearing registration No. C.G. 11/8066. When the ' bus reached near Ringania turning, due to rash and negligent driving of the non-applicant No.l (Mobin Khan) the bus got out of control, it hit to a Santro Car, bearing registration No. C.G. 12/6490, coming from the opposite side, and the bus turned turtle. In that accident claimant received grievous injuries and his left leg got damaged. As per the version of the claim petition the first aid was given to the claimant in Gurasia Hospital, Village ~ Pondi from where he was referred to Chirmiri Hospital, then Baikunthpur Hospital and Central Hospital, Manendragarh. ,^^^^^^, ,^" ,>?';, '""^ y^^'b. '^ @ Lastly, the claimant was treated in the B. L. Chandani Hospital at Bilaspur as an indoor patient from 20.10.2008 to 27.10.2008. Thus, the claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Mofor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation ofRs. 3,24,358/- under various heads. 4. It is evident that the statement of the injured child, aged about 10 years was recorded. No contradiction is found in his statement. Further, the treatment slip of the date of accident i.e. 13.10.2008 is also available on record but the same was not proved. In our view, the Tribunal should not have treated the claim petition as a civil suit and should have conducted an enquiiy in accordance with the statutory provisions of law i.e. 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of the M.P./C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, which are quoted herein below : 168. ,Award ofthe Claims Tribunal. (1) On receipt of an application for compensation made under section 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of section 162 may make an award determinmg the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or dnver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any ofthem,as the case may be: Provided that where such application makes a claim for conipensation under section 140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise) for compensation in respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisipns of Chapter X. j:l / .,..—^ '""^. @ (2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any case within a period of fifteen days from the date of the award. (3) When an award is made under this section, the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall, within thirty days of the date of announcing the award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct. 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 award the claim whether the partieg who were given notice, appear or not, on the appointed date. Hon?ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & another { 2010(12) SCALE} in para 11 has held that 'The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered inregard to the injuries and their effect, inparticular 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 actiue explorer and seeker oftruth who is required to (hold an enquiry into ihe claim' for determining the 'just compensation\ The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position sothat it canassess the (just compensation\M In view of the aforementioned statutory provisions of law and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj Kuinar (supra) it is evident that the parliament has enacted benevolent provisions oflawinthe interest of the persons who received bodily injuries or in the interest of the legal heirs of the persons who sustained death in motor accident cases. Having regard to the facts and situation and the benevolent provisions oflawwe are of the considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal should not have (^.ismissed the claim petition without properly considering the medical evidence and without making an enquiry i.e. to call '!-y '^ for the doctor to give evidence, who had treated the injured/claimant. 7. The doctors who had treated the claimant/injured should have been summoned to ascertain the truth and proper enquiry should have been conducted by the Claiins Tribunal but the same has not been done. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal should consider and decide the claim petition afresh. 8. For the reasons stated herein above, we allow this appeal in part, set-aside the impugned award dated 30.8.2010 and remit back the matter to the Tribunal for decision afresh. No order as to costs. 9. 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 docurqients verified etc. Thereafter, the decision shall be made by the Tribunal on merits. 10. Partie.s shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 28.4.2011. 11. The lower Courts record shall be sent back forthwith. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Thakur