•.cjjpfpe-dtvsewivuAil dsHiaw fw vi— tW ffM *-!Wt»u*^« IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Anpeal {C} N0. •2-8 \ /2011 5- -• . • Mvei AP^ELLANT ~7 RESPONDENTS ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ -<'•••' /.--~f^'' ..-'''. y."''.->ly'~ ^''' -,^.^y' ..'^/ i,i^-; ^' e L^ s:.^:l~ ^^ •*•' /-I ' ^^ o ,.Smt. 'Chamrin Bai, wife of Permulal / Kawar, resident of Village Buchatola, Tehsil Churiya, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Claimant) VERSUS Shubhash Yadav, son of Shri Vidhya Prasad. Yadav, Proprietor Aashirvad Mini Bus Co., Churiya, resident of .Ghogher Tehsil, Churiya, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Owner) Fangeshwar @ Fungesh, son of Likhan Ram, resident of Village Hedalkodo @ Badey Telgan, Tehsil Churiya, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Driver) National Insurance Company Limited, Through Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Insurer) MEMQRANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 AS AMENDED BYACTOF 1994 fai-K i-S ^r' WWCWKTW CWWmS6MKHAJ BILASPUR bIVISION BENCH: HOWBLE MR. I.M^UDbUSI A HON'BLE Mft. 6HULAM MINHAJUtltoIN. JJ. ApDellaiit Rwponduits M.ArdNo 281/2011 Snnt. Charorin Bai Vs Subhash Yadw & 2 others Prtscnt: ^ Mr. Sachin Singh ftnjput, Advacatvfwthe appellant, None for respondent No.l A 2 though served. AAr, Dashrath Supta, Advocate for the respondents No.3. ORDBKOnA (tZ*" May, 2011) I.rt. Quddusi.J; 1; Heard. 2. The appellant-cMmarrt has fjlerithBmia^ll<m®(^' ff^^^ of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (fw short 'rhe Act") eggjnstthe onler doted 29.11.2010 passed (mder Order 17 Rute 2 ofCPC in Clnjm Case No.132/200? whereby lenrned Ad4itional AAotor Accident Ctaims Tribunal, (FTQ, Rqjnandgaon (for s.hortJ-he C|ain»TrtbunaO has dlOT^ claim applicotion of the appeltant herein. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 11.2.2009 the claimarrt- was returning to Village Buchtola from yiH<i9eChhu^ m Mmi^B^ rcgistration number C6Q8-ZA-iM)Q100/-. t>ue to^rtish nnd negligent drivuig by the driver of the said vehicle, it turned twtle near Bnnjari Road as n result the claimcmtsustnned 9i"ie!y9US tojl»'ies °" her forehead, waist A hmd. The claimnnt remajned m^ l:h|.. .liSKen'nii^ J^pit^ 11.2.2009 and ia2.2009 fw ^reiiftrivsn^Thej^ifi^^-c^ filed n ckiim petition seekjng compenscrt-ion of Rs.3,35,000/- for the perrawient disability sust'ained by her in thie said accident on the ground that due to herpermoneirt djsAtem«Ht«sh® hM%St<uwd irrepgnifele loss. 4. The Claims Tribunat dismissed the ctatm opplication of the injured ckitma»Tt under Order 17 Rule 2 CPC on the yound that' neither the claimont ^ ^ ^ appeared nor ndduced any evidence in support of her cla(m despite 9ivjn9 severul opporl'unities. 5, We hcwe heard learned counsel for the ptrties dnd pens«itheji^iygnetl order as also records of the Ckiims Trfeunal below. 6. Perusal ofthe record shows that on 23.8.2010 Theclwmanthasfitedgsime documents along with the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC. The said applicarion was altowed bytheCtoims Tribumla^ thAdwBBft^ taken on record. These doctW^fW.er^S^tff^m^lW&^^^iS^ fff clainiant in the hospital, insu'aice policy, RC BoQk .ofthe pff%riBy vdijcle etc. Aport' -from the aforesaid documents; some other docuniients (••elatedto the incident i.e. copy of HR, report imder Section 173 Cr.P.C., <g'imsdetgjfa form, property seizwe memo/technicol repwt of the spncemed Atotor vehicle et-c. were dso fjled, Affidavitoftheinju^^c^ Cjianrin Bni in support of thecluim applicntion is also wnilobte on record. Z In ^^ection l^oftbeSectKm 166 oftheAct, 1988rt^^ that the Claims Tribtmalshnll treat any report' pf accidents forwarded to it under sub-secrion (6) of Section 1:58 as nn applicatjon for cpinpenaition under this Act. 8. Section 168 ofthc Acr, 1988 provi<les that on receipt of an applicaMon for compensotion madie under Section 166, the Clawns Tribunal shall, ufter giving mrticeef the appticcfHM fo fhe'Msurw <^ giving the porties (includin9 the insurer) an opport-unity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the clnim or, as the «BCmoy be; ench of the ckurns ond. subject to the provisions of Section 162 may mAe an nwcrd^ d^ aroount of compensation irfiich appetrs, it to be jusr and specifyin9 the .pa^on pr perawis tp whom compensafion sholl be pairf. 9. Section 169 of the Act, 1988 prescribes procedure and po«»eraof the Claims Tribunal and s<«^that in ho|din9 any ir^ujiy i^ the Claims Tribimat may, aAjeef to wy rules that may be made in this behalf, follow aich sunnary procedure as rt thinks fit. The Clairos Tribunal shall hdve all the powers of frCiwlCourt for the pirpose of taking ewidence on !t> !^ ^'o^ ooth and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of conpdjngthe discovery and production of documents and mcrt'eriol objects end for such other pwposes as may be prescrdaed and the Cl9OTis.Trit?tflwl shflll te deeined to be a Civil Court for al| the pur{)oses <»f$s^^^ XXVIoftheCPC. lO.Besides above, in Rule 226 of the Motor Vehjete failes, 1994 ithgs feMn provided thot the Claims Tribiinal sholl conducr enqyiry to <iB;ert<un the fact, Therefwe, it was the bounden dut-y of the CNn's Ti''ib!Bwil -tS fe*'iTO truth on record. « 1L In the matter <rf Rn^UWJfe, .Ajfly^^to 0,2) SCAIE the Hor&le^^^Court has heU tto "^ Jr^i^dAisisA/wf be a sileiit spwtatfir iifhen medic^.evtdwcv^^a^ infwies wd their effect, w^rt/o^ ^A<'.<^^? <!^ji»irn!KiN!!^ Sections 168 cnd 169 of the Act make it wideiif- that the Tribwne^ftoesfwt fwictiwi as a neulrttlwviwe ea m ttciW swt, but as w <«ttwe^slww vnd seeker of truth who is reguifed^tff 'hold en eii^ury into the chm^ for detwfnming the 'J^ cwmfiim^i^J^he Tnbi^j^is^ w active role to ascertain the trtK^correetpo^^wthe^^^j^ the 'just cmnpensatiwi^..^,." 12. In view of the cSome, it is ^arthifcri<>inLffl'Plli<»t«eB1in<l<»'th®A^t, 1988 cannot be treat-ed as a civit suit as interrt-ion of the legislrtire M that victiro or in cwse of deoth, legnl heirs of the deceeised, shoutd not be de(H'ived of getting compensarion in gemiine ctBes and <s such conduct of enquiry l?y The Ckiims Trftxmgl ha$ been prwidied underthe Act, 1988 (md the Rutes niude thereimder, Thus jt wws bounden duty of the Claims Tribunal to conduct proper en^iry to J^ on necord byt the scree has not been done in the instant caseand therefwe we hwe no hesiTotion in saying that the Clainis Tjjbunri,h<B^jwt^l|e»(ei(lAhe^ l-toweyer.synce thejfflpu^ie^^a^jias t»e«tpassed byfhe Cfaiims Tritaanot under Order 17 Rule 2 CPC[, the oppeUant shwiy.hW^m^iB^ <m flppticfft'ion under Order^Rule 9 CPC instead of filing this appml, aes in Orda* 17 Kule 2 CPC it has been proyided that "o'Awe', <m my diay to vhicht^h ^ 4 h^..^^ / \:y. Rodian/- the suit is adjowned, the parties or Wy ef thmi fail t9 apfiear, tfif IG»H't mey jvoceed to <fispose ofthe wit in one of the modes dweeted.in thai' jfitfier w^er as it tfiH^<S W- 13. Accordii^ly, we djsiwe of the if^ant apj»a|i»iththe ^er^^ case the appetlanf approaches the Claims Trjbunal, wi't'hin o perjiodof 30 days from todoy (excluding the period of ensutngsuroroer vacatj^), t^.filjng an appljcationunder Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. the sgme !sAigiM.fejej@9r i<ter®5li>y the Claims Tribunnt in light of the observat'jons rn<i<le in this S!i",(l«'' flnd decjded the some in accordnnce with law. 14. Certified copy os per rules. f~L Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge .^^ G- l"7ud&e Ad^ /.