^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal {C} NO.'? ^ ^ 12007 mms IB APPELLANT RESPONDBNTS Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Shiv Mohan Bhavan, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Pandri, Raipur Tahsil 85 Distt. Raipur VERSUS Bhusal Kosale S/o Bhauram Kosale aged about 49 years, Caste-Satnami Mayawati Kosale W/o Bhusal Kosale, aged about 40 years, Caste-Satnami, Lakshmin Bai Wd/o Late Lakshi Kosale, aged about 28 years, Caste- Satnami, Sushil Kosale S/o Late Lakshmi Kosale, aged about 14 years, Seema Kosale D/o Late Lakshmi Kosale, aged about 09 years, Pooja Kosale D/o, Late Lakshmi Kosale, aged about 06 years, Rani Kosale D/o Late Lakshmi Kosale, aged about 04 years, Dadu Kosale S/o Late Lakshmi Kosale, aged about 02 years, Respondent no. 4 to 8 minor represented though natural guardian mother Smt. Lakshmin Bai, All R/o Village Nawagarh,Post Nawagarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) (CLAIMANTSi Ramesh Kumar Sao S/o Karamdev aged about 28 years, R/o Village-Navdiha, Khajri, Thana Pitarpur, Distt. Palaniu (Jharkhand) Presently at S.M.S. Company Gevra, Thana Dipika District Korba (C.G.) (DRIVER OF THE VEHICLEt l?) f Jai Singh S/o Hira Singh aged about 60 /VKyears, R/o B/51, Urja Nagar, S.E.C.L. Gevra, District Korba (C.G.) (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE1 ^) ^- ^tRS^-. MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 h HLGKCOURTOF^HHATTlSGARhLATBlLASPUR D.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi and Hpn'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.376 of2007 Appellant Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited versus Respondents Smt. Sheela Devi and others Present: Shri S.S.Rajput, counsel forthe appellant. Smt. Renu Kochar, counsel for respondents No.1 to 6. Shri Azad Siddique, counsel for respondent No.8. None for respondent No.7. MiscellaneoysAppealyndeLSection 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.384 of 2007 Appellant Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited versus Respondents Bhusal Kosale and others Present: Shri .S.S.Rajput, counsel for the appellant. Smt. Renu Kochar, counsel for respondents No.1 to 8. Shri Azad Siddique, counsel for respondent No.10. k None for respondent No.9. Miscellaneous Appeal under^ection 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ORAL ORDER ,th (Passedon20TnApril,2011) Per I.M. Quddusi, J.: Heard. ;\ 2. Miscellanepus Appeals (C.) No.376 of 2007 and 384 of 2007 \, •. ,have been preferred by the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited against two awards both dated 6-2-2007 passed by the 6 Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Cases No. 11/2006 and 10/2006, respectively. 3. Brief facts of the case, according to the claimants of both the claim cases, are that on the date of accident, i.e., 12-4-2006, a vehicle bearing registration No.CG 12 C 1753 was being driven by non-claimant No.1 Ramesh Kumar Sao. Due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle, it dashed with vehicles bearing registration No.CG 12 9373 and No.CG 12 C 1158 parked on Adarsh Nagar Road. Deceased Raghu Chaitamba and Laxmiprasad, standing on a side of the road, affected with the accident and as a result of the accident, they died. TheJncident was reported to the Police Station Kusmunda. Wife and daughters of the deceased Raghu Chaitamba preferred an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Father, mother, wife and children of the deceased Laxmiprasad also preferred an application under Section 166 ofthe Act claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. 4 . In Claim Case No.11/2006, the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,95,000/- in favour of the claimants (legal heirs of the deceased Raghu Chaitamba) holding liability to satisfy the award on the non-claimants jointly and severally. In Claim Case No. 10/2006, the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,05,000/- in favour of the claimants (legal heirs of the deceased Laxmiprasad) holding tiability to satisfy the av^ard on the non-claimants jointly and severally. ^ 5. Since both the miscellaneous appeals relate to one and the same accident, they are disposed of by this common order. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellanVinsurance company has raised a plea that the salary certificate of private employer, relied upon in concluding and assessing the quantum, was not examined and the said certificate has been believed without examining the appellant/insurance company. 7. It has been provided in Rule 226 of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 that 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 parties who were given notice, appear or not, on the appointed date. Further, we cannot ignore the provisions of Section 168 of the Act, which provides that on receipt of an application for compensation made under Section 166 of the Act, the Cl'aims 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 enquiry 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 determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. However, the Claims Tribunal has not conducted any enquiry in the manner-indicated above. 8. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another, 2010 (12) Scale 265, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 11 of the report thus (only relevant portion is extracted below): "11. 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 of the 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 of truth who is required to 'hold an enquiry into the ctaim' for determining the 'just compensation'. The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the 'just compensation'. .........." 9. In view of the above, it was the duty of the Claims Tribunal to conduct a proper enquiry into the claim and find out the truth. 10. Therefore, both the matters require reconsideration at the end oftheClaimsTribunal. ^M^IH^ 11. Accordingly, we allow both the miscellaneous appeals in part, set aside the impugned awards and remit both the matters back to the Claims Tribunal for decision afresh in the light of the observations made above. Records of the Claims Tribunal be sent back. The amount deposited by the appellant/insurance company shall remain in deposit. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce further evidence, file documents or get the documents verified etc. and thereafter award shall be passe^) afresh. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- prashantKumarMishra Judge Gopal