^^ c^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHl M.A.(Q No. of 2010 IIQ11 APPELLANTS APPLICANTS A^, ^. NON-APPLICANTS :1) Smt. Sumati Bai, Wd/o. late Nandkumar Sahu, aged 43 years, :2) Tushar @ Golu S/o. Nandkumar Sahu, aged 18 years, :3) Smt Manbha Bai W//o. Ghasiyaram Sahu, aged 60 years, :4) Ghasiya Ram Sahu, S/o. late Vishram Sahu, aged 65 years, All R/o. Village Aurethi, Police Station Simga, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS :1) Abdul Karim, S/o. Abdul Rab, aged 22 years, R/o. Paragan Police Station and District Ambikapur (Chhattisgarh) and Maharana Pratap Chowk, Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (Driver of Truck-Trip Trailer No.CG-lOC 1732) :2) Brijesh Kumar Singh S/o. Umakant Singh, aged 40 years, R/o. Maharana Pratap Chowk, Bilaspur Police Station Civil Line, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (Owner of Truck-Trip Trailer No.CG-10C 1732) :3) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through Divisional Manager, Kachchari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (insurer of Truck-Trip Trailer No.CG-10C 1732) ^- APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF ^rnTOR VEHICLES ACT. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR DB: HON'BLB I. M. QUDDUSI 8s HON'BLE G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ M.AIC)J[o.7?9Z2010 APPELLANTS: RESPONDBNTS: Sm.t. Suniati Bai and 3 otliers Vs. Abdul Karmi aad t^vo ofhers MISC. APPBAL UNDER SBCTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLB8 ACT, 1988 Appearaiice: Mr, H. B, Agrawal, Sr, Advocate witli S. P. Saliu, couusel for the appellaiits. None for tlie respondents. Perl.M. QUDDUSI, J, ORAL Om5ER (05.09.2011) 1. List is being revised. Case is agaia called out, No oiie appears for tlie respondents even when tlie niatter is taken up iii second round. However, Mr. H. B, Agrawal, Sr, Advocate is present. Therefore, we proceed ex-parie agaiiist tlie respondents. 2. This appeal has beeii liled by tlie Claimaiits agaiast tlie impugned award dated 17.06,2010 passed by the IX AddL Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (FTC), Raipm- (C.G) in Claim Case No. 144/2009 dismissmg tlie claun offhe appellaiits, 3e Brief facts of fhe case as per ttie version of the claiman.ts that on 24.02.2009 deceased Naad Kumar, was drivitig his Rajdoot Motorcycle bearing Regn.No.C.G.04-ZJ/6045 along-wifti TUakram who was sittmg as piUion rider. On the way at about 8.30 p.m, (niglit tiaie) near Otari caiial, ttie offendiag vehicle ^s^ fC^'. <, Tmck Trailor bearing Regn.No. C.G. 10-C/ 1732 which was beiag driven by respondent No. 1 ia a rash aad negligent inaaner has suddenly stopped fh.e vehicle witliout giviag aay honi or showiag indicator, due to which, Naad Kuinar could not control his niotorbike aiid dashed fh.e said Track froni back side, as a result of whichy Naad Kuraar sustaiaed grievous uijuries aad died. At th.e time of accident, the deceased was aged about 45 years; he was working as head-niason and was eamuig Rs.100/- per day, The clamiaats being dependents/ legal representatives of fhe deceased have filed claka petition u/s 163-A of fhe Motor Vehicles Act for fhe award of a total coinpeusation ofRs,5,90,000/~ wifh iaterest on various heads. 4, The leamed Claims Tribunal has held fhat it is not proved Uiat fhe deceased died ia fhe said accident; it is not proved fhat fhere was breach of conditions of the in.surance poUcy by respondent no. 1 and fhe claiaiaats are not entiUed to receive conipensation. 5. Leamed counsel for fhe appellaiit subinits fhat as to who is negUgent or fault was not to be seen in view of fhe provisions of section 163-A offhe MVA which reads as under: 163-A. Special Provisions as to paynient of conipensation on structured formula basis.—(1) Notevifhstaading anyttiing contauied m. tiiis Act or ia aay other law for the time beiag in force or mstn.iment haviag the force of law, the owner of ttie m-otor vehicle or fhe autliorized insurer shatl be Uable to pay ui the case of deafh or pennaneiit disablenient due to accident adsiag out of tlie use of inotor vehicle, conipensation, as iadicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or fhe victmi, as fhe case niay be. (2) Iii aiiy claim for compensation under sub- section (1), the claimaiit shall not be required to plead or -<l estabUsh that the deatli or permarient disablenient in respect ofwhich the claim has been niade was due to aiiy wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of fhe vehicle or vehicles concenied or of any ofher person. 6. It appears that the Tnbunal wifhout goiag fhrough Uie provisions of sub-section (2) of sectiou 163-A aad without conductiag any enquiiy to ascertaia the facts as provided ia Rule 226 of the C.G. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 and Sections 168 & 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has straight way disiaissed the claiai appUcation which should not have been doue. 7. In Ra/ Kufnar -^s- Ajcsy Kutnar and an^thcr decided on 18th October, 2010 and reported in IV (2010) Accident <SB Compensafion Cczses 815 fSC^ Hon'ble tlie Apex Court. laid dowu vide Para-11 fhat Sections 168 aad 169 ofthe Act niake it evident th.at fhe Tribunal does not function as a neutral innpire as ia a civil suit, but as an active explorer aiid seeker of trufh. who is required to 'hold aa inquiry uito fhe claim' for determiamg tlie 'just compensation'. The Tribunal shozild fherefore take aii active role to ascertein tlie true aad correct position so tliat it can. assess the 'just conipensation'. 8. Therefore, we are of fhe opiaion tliat the niatter requires reconsideration at fhe end of the Tribunal. Hence, we allow tliis appeal ia part, set aside tlie impugned award and reniit fhe inatter back to tlie Tribunal for decisiou afresh ui tlie Ught of obser^^ations m.ade hereinabove. 9, Needless to iiiention that tlie parties shall be aUowed to amend the pleadmgs, adduce furtlier evidence, file tlie documents or get the documLents verified etc aad thereafter fhe decision shall -•x..t'/ 10. be taken afresh at fhe earliest. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 12th October 2011. The records ofthe Tribunal shatl be sent back without further delay. In tlxe result, fhis appeal is allowed in. part, No order as to cost Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G.Minhajuddin Judge Rao \