^^ 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURfC.G) APPLICANT: <' RESPONDENTS: / M.A.fO No." _2& N Jagjeet Singh, S/o Late Sardar Heera Singh, aged about 46 yrs. R/o Vill. Kendri, P.S. Abhanpur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS > ^ > 3. Abhishek Kumar Jema, S/o Harsha Jema, aged about 21 yrs. R/o Kodamor, Kanker, Distt. Kanker (C.G.) R. D. Singh, S/o Late C. R. Singh, Vill. Awari, Keshakal, Distt. Bashtar, (C.G.) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch- Infront of Adarsh Bal Mandir Mainroad, Dhamtari, Through- Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kachahari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) Miscellaneous Appealunder Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act, 1994 2- ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. (QNo.81 of 2007 Appellant Jagjeet Singh Versus Respondents Abhishek Kumar Jema & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I. M. Quddusi 8s Hon'ble Shri Justice.Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri A. L. Singrol, Advocates for the appellant. None for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Raj Awasthy, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 1 5th day of March, 2011) . , Per I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the injured/claimant against the impugned orders dated 5.5.2006 and 6.5.2006 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 23/2005, dismissing the claim petition for non-prosecution as well as the application for compromise. 2. The, brief facts, in nutshell, are that the present appellant, who . sustained injuries in a motor accident filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of compensation as he received grievous injuries and became permanent disabled in an accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the respondent No.l. 3. During the pendency of the claim petition a compromise application, signed by both the parties, was filed on 5.5.2006 n- s ^ :^^ 'r^- ?^.' ^ that the parties are ready and willing to compromise the matter in a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/-. 4 . Learned Claims Tribunal on 5.5.2006 dismissed the claim petition for want of prosecution and on 6.5.2006 also dismissed the compromise application for want of prosecution. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the lower Court record. 6. Before proceeding further it is necessary to peruse the relevant provisions oflaw, which are quoted herein below. 7. Section 166 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that <<The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents fonvarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.?? 8. Section 158 (6) of the Act, 1988 provides that <(As soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or report under this section is completed by a police officer, the officer incharge of the police station shall fonvard a copy of the same within thirty days from the date ofrecording ofinformation or, as the case may be, on completion of such report to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer, and where a copy is made available to the owner, he shall also within thirty days of receipt of such report, forward the same fo such Claims Tribunal and Insurer/' 9. Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh MotorVehicles Rules, 1994 are also relevant to be perused, which reads as under. 10. " 169. Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunals. - (1) In holding any inquiry under section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. (2) The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (3) Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, the Claims Tribunal may, for the purpose of adjudicating upon any claim for compensation, choose one or more persons possessing sp.ecial knowledge of and matter relevant to the inquiry to assist it in holding the inquiry." ^ 226. OBTAINING OF INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS NEC^SSARY FOR AWARDING COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 40-. The Claims Tribunal shall obtain whatever information and documents which may be found necessary from fhe 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. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kuinar Vs« Ajay Kunaar & another { 2010 (12) SCALE} in para 11 has held that UThe Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, inparticular the extent ofpermanent disability. Sections 168 and 169ofthe 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 whois required to (hold an enquiry into the claim' for determining the 'just compensation9. The Tribunal should \:. therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that itcan assess the (just compensation\" 11. In view of the aforementioned statutory provisions of law and the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj Kuniar (supra) it is evident that the parliament has enacted a benevolent provisions of law in the 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 of law we are of the considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal should not have dismissed the claim petition for non-prosecution. 12. In view of the above this Court is of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal has adopted a cryptic approach in dismissing the claim petition and the application for compromise by the impugned orders for non-prosecution. Such an approach is deprecated. 13. For the reasons stated herein above, we allow this appeal in part, set-aside the impugned orders dated 5.5.20Q6 and 6.5.2006 and remit back the matter to the Tribunal for decision afresh. No order as to costs. 14. 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 ete. Thereafter, the decision shall be made by the Tribunal on merits. 15. The lower Courts record shall be sent back forthwith. Thakur Sd/- I.M-Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge /