IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL FC1 N0. 5^^^"//2010 APPELLANTS ^ N<^5~ 1.8'Geete-* Jayaswal, Wd/o Vijayprasad Jayaswal, Aged about SOyears. / (0/ ^ 2^ Sanket Jayaswal S/o Late Vijayprasad ^ Jayaswal, aged about 1 1 years. ,/ 3. Harsh Jayaswal S/o Late Vijayprasad |K \°.- <^"Jr ^- .^'^ ^' /\{ /^ Jayaswal, aged about 5 years. h/^'v^ Appellants no.2 and 3 are minor and represented by their natural guardian and mother|^|eeta Jayaswal. ^' .-6 RESPONDENTS All are resident of Gayatri Mandir, Pulgaon Chowk, Durg. Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.). VERSUS .1: Rajendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shivraj Sahu, R/o Ramnagar, Urla, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.). 2. ^ Vijay Kaushal S/o Panchuram Kaushal, R/o Shivnagar, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.). Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Thakkar Chamber, Powerhouse Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.), MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988. VALUED (% RS. 62.S5.000/- HIGH^PURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. (Q No. 382 of 2010 Appellants Neeta Jayaswal & others Versus Respondents Rajendra Kumar Sahu & others .^ MISC.APPEALUNDERSECTIQN 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 8& Hon'ble Shri G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shri Shashank Thakur and Shri Sanjay Aganval, Advocates for the appellants. None for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri G. V. K. Rao, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 23rd day of September, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi J. 1. The instant appeal, filed by the appcllants/claimants arises from the award dated 10.3.2010, passed by the Eleventh Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg in Claim Case No. 78/2009, dismissing the claim petition. The facts, in brief, are that on 7.6.2009 at about 10.25 p.m. while deceased Vijay Prasad Jayaswal was returning to his house at Pulgaon by his moped - Luna, he was hit by a Maruti Van, bearing registration No. C.G. 07-M/0182, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the non-applicant No.l. In that accident Vijay Prasad Jayaswal died on the spot. The report of the incident was lodged in the Police Chowky - Anjora, Police Station - Pulgaon. The legal heirs/claimants of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of compensation, ,9 ^ss. '%......x^ ;'^;-:t:-.-.-.^y"' wherein learned Claims Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record dismissed the claim. petition holding that the accident was caused by some unknown vehicle. 4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the lowerCourt's record. 5. On perusal of the evidence it is evident that the owner of the vehicle i.e. Maruti Van, namely Vijay Kaushal has admitted the fact of accident. Another witness namely Hemant Deshmukh has also stated that when he was sitting in the Police Chowky - Anjora, the driver of the Maruti Van had gave information to the police that the accident was caused by the Maruti Van. Further, a perusal of the record of the Tribunal shows that the police had filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. 6. The Tribunal has decided the issue No.l to the effect that the accident had taken place by some unknown vehicle. It appears that the Tribunal has not conducted a proper enquiry as provided under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of the M.P./C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kum.ar Vs. Ajay Kumar 8& 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 of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 ofthe Act make it evident that the Tribunal does notfunction as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to 'hold an enquiry into the claim'for determining the (just compensation\ 8. Therefore, in view of what has been observed by this Court hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Tribunal after conducting an enquiry as provided under Sections (y:^ •^' •^m:^5^" i K(. 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of the M.P./C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. The Tribunal should summon the police record and should also summon the witnesses narrating the facts of accident and then only the facts should be ascertained. 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we allow this appeal in part, set-aside the impugned award dated 10.3.2010 and remit back the matter to the Tribunal for decision afresh in view of the observations made hereinabove. No order as to costs. 10. 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 documents verified etc. 11. The Tribunal shall make an endeavor to decide the claim petition, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties before it. 12. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 15th November, 2011. 13, The lower Courts record shall be sent back forthwith. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G.Minhajuddin Judge Thakur