|a IH 1» II l^ l^ lo laiIn !fl 1<=! 1§ IM IH 3w n o r ? ooo o o^ 00oa\ ~sl 13 \01» 1» Itt\a l^* IK* 10 |F» 1& |S 10. ?9 .£. v ^ G h-i. M "i t-1 ri Q §1 !" £ ?(§-II gl: tO 3 ?.£. )-1. o; ^ TO -e 03 s.s i—'f1 M ^yn G 3 1->* rhno. h^o M 1 !B Bon 0b so. o 1 CD-{ 13 \0'» li)V T31-^ 5-uo rt- Bb r ? o n p o 0\ > " (» p o — O) --] a sww i'S-o^ rt P ^, 2; " ^" ?? 11^1 " 9 F° !B ^ o-g 3 1p D. ^M £:3: ^ y S-I" M \ t3 1 ~w M h^* y (i < H » cn Q co ,-Ci '•'<*• a%%.. '''i'f1. 'y,r \ ^"•.. l&'^' u'"^x '^^ lsi- "y-^ n p M 1 ! cn 10 Iw IH HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS: Hoa'ble I. M. QUDDUSI 8s Hon'ble MANINDRA KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, JJ M.A(C(.No.l576 /2008 Siut. Rambha Bai aad another Vs. Dui^a Sinha aad auother MISC. APPEALUNDER^SECTIQN 173 OF THB MQTOR VEHICLES ACT^ 1988 Appearance: Mr. J. A. Lohaiii, Coiuisel for fhe appeUants. Mr. Paakaj Agrawal, Coi-insel for the respondents. OR&L OKDER (06.05.2011) Per I.M. QUDDUSI, J, 1. This appeal Iias been filed by fhe Clauuaats agamst fhe iiapugned award dated 04.02.2008 passed by fhe Ist Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G) ia Claim Case No. 10/2007 dismissiag fhe claini of the appeUants. 2. Brief facts of fhe case as per fhe version of the claimaxits are that on 22.7.2007 AppeUant no.l Rambha Bai and her niother-in-law Udiya Bai were travelnig in Maruti Vaa bearing No. C.G.06/A-8067. They were commg towards Pitfaaura from. Basua. On fhe way near village Lohrakot on High Way No.6 the said Maruti Vaa which was beiag driven by Raja Satnami in a rash and negligent inanner dashed a Truck, as a result of which, Rambba Bai aad Udiya Bai sustained serious injuries aud fhey were inunediately brought to Priiuaiy Health Center Pitbaura froin where fhey >. »-i-'--<a,. ^y/"-^ "^ i ^ssSSS^ i i'vf^j '^^y were referred to Medical CoUege Hospital,/Raipur where Udiya Bai died during fhe course of treatanent At the time of accident, fhe deceased was aged about 55 years aad was eamiag Rs.100/- per day by doing labour works. The claunaats beiag dependents/legal representatives of fhe deceased have ffled claiin petition u/s 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for fhe award of a total coinpensation of Rs. 11,30,000/-on various heads. 3. The Tribunal has framed 4 issues, out ofwhich, issue no.2 was with regard to breach of Iiisuraace Policy and it was held that fhere was no breach of iasurance poUcy. Though wifh regard to issue no. 1 it has been held that the driver of Maruti Vaa No. C.G.06-A/8067 was driviag fhe vehicle rashly aad negUgenfly resulting in accident, but it has held that fhe claunants are not entitled to get fhe compensation as it was not stated that fhe clamiants were dependiug upon fhe deceased and the husband of appeUant no. l was not an eammg uieiuber, fherefore, loss of dependency could not be proved. With regard to Issue No.2 that is breach of nisuraiice poUcy, fhe Tnbunal has failed to peruse the poUce record ia which the owner offhe vehicle namely Durga Sintia had given his statenient duly signed by him on 29.9.2007 (Ex. D-1) that his vehicle was beiag used as Taxi. The iasurance was inade for package poUcy ofthe private car. 4. With regard to deiiial of coiupensation, it is to be noticed fhat the Tribunal has totally ignored the police record. Fltrfher ia fhe claun petition itself, appeUaat no.l has mentioned her husband's name as late Kushto Sauia aad ^ .:: f'' ••" ^.. s-.-f hence, she was widow. Wifh regard to her eamiug, she has stated fhat she was also traveling in fhe same vehicle aad was injured aad was not capable ofdoing aay work pursuant to fhe said accident aad before fbat she was also eanuiig Rs.100/- per day and it was a joiat fauuly. The deceased was her inofher-ui-law. 5. Therefore, we are of fhe view that the Tribunal has not conducted proper enquiry as laid down ia Rule 226 of fhe C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 aad Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6. It has been provided ia Rule 226 of C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 fhat fhe Claims Tribi.mal shaU obtain whatever information and docuilients which inay be found necessary froin fhe police, inedical aad ofher auftiorities aad proceed to award fhe claim whether the parties who were given notice, appear or not, on fhe appouited date. Further we caniiot igaore the provisioas ofsectionl68 offhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides that on receipt of an application for compensation inade u/s 166, the Clauas Tnbunal shaU after giviag fhe parties (uicludiug fhe insurer) an opportuility of being heard, hold aa iaquiry into fhe claim. aiid subject to ttie provisions of section 162 inay niake an. award determining the ainount of coinpensation which appears to it to be just. 7. Further ia Rcy Kum.ar -vs- AJiuf Kunuir emd cinother decided on 18th October, 2010 and reported in IV (2010) Accident & CompensaUon Cdses 815 (SC), Honlle the Apex Court laid down vide Para-11 that Sections 168 aad 169 of the Act niake it evident fhat fhe Tnbuiial does not fiuiction as a neutral uinpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to hold aa iaquiry into ftie claiin' for determining the 'just conipensation'. The Tribujial should fherefore take au active role to ascertaui fhe true and correct position so fhat it can assess fhe 'just coinpensation', 8. In view of fhe above, fhis Court is of fhe view fhat fhe inatter requires reconsideration at the end of fhe Tribunal. Therefore, we aUow fhis appeal ta part; set aside the impugaed award dated 04.02.2008 aiid reinit fhe inatter back to fhe Tribunal for decision afresh. 9. Needless to niention fhat fhe parties shall be aUowed to amend the pleadiugs, adduce furfher evidence, file docuiaents or get the documents verified etc., aad thereafter fhe Tribunal after conducting proper enquiry shaU inake fhe award. The pardes shall appear before the Tribuiial on 22nd of June, 2011. The records of the Tribunal shaU be sent forfhwifh. No order as to costs. 10. AppeUaat no. 1 is also entitled to inake furfher claun. as she was iajured during the saine accident aad uicurred certaiii amount for her treatment. Sd/- iM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- ManindraMohanShrivastava Judge Rao