,/-' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M!SC.APPEM-rC]NO._"l^^_Z20J,0 n.... . Sli MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VBIICLES ACT. 1988 APPELLANT INSURER \^^UA CA»^' <t ^y .'-••••^^ ":-'" '^ •ea'*' ICICI Lombard, General Insurance Company Limited, Registered office: ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla, Complgx, Mumbai, 4000 51, through its Legal Manager, ICIC1 Lomtiara General Insurance Company Limited Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, 3rd Floor, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS :- 1. Smt. Nema Bai wd/o Late Banwali /JLAIMANTS '' ^ Ram Sahu, aged about 53 years. Shobharam s/o Late Banwali Ram Sahu, aged about 39 years. /; 3, Khem Lal S/o Late Banwali Ram Sahu, aged about 23 years, DRIVER All R/o Motipur, Ward No.6, Jain Chal, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil 8s District : Rajnandgaon (C.G.) -.' Damaru Ram S/o Tularam Sahu,aged OWNER ^ ^ about 60 years, R/o village Tedesara, Post Devada, Tahsil 8& District: Rajnandgaon (C.G.). /8. Bhavesh Kumar Agrawal, R/o near Over bridge, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ^. APPEAL VALUED AT RS, 4,51,000/- r ""'^'^,. ^ y^ ~~\ .4 /?l"'^^^ilL V, S s HI6H COURT OF CHHAmS6ARH AT BILASPL® DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUD&USI & HON'BLE MR.6ULAM MINHAWD&IN. JJ M.A. (Cl No.97/2010 ABoellant Resoondents Vs ICTCI Lombard Seneral Ir^irance Co. Smt. Nema Bai & others Presientl f. Sourabh Shnrma, Ach/ocate for the appellant. W. Su^iobhit Singh, Advocate forj'he respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate for the respondent No.5. ORDER COraO (&* July. 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appellant-Insuronce Conyany has filed •this misceBaneeus appeal ogahist the award dated 02.12.2009 pdssed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnondgaon (for short Ihe Ckiims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.30/08. r^pacts of the case, in brief, are -rtiat on 21A£OQ6 Bcmwali ftam Salui (since deceased) was returning to his house from the market on his bicyele. When he readied near Imam Chowk, Rajnondgaon. a vehicle bearing r^istrartion number C608-ZA-0141, being driven in rash and negligent nwnner by its drjver, dashed the bicycle of said Bwwali as a result of which he ajstained grievous injuries in both his legs. 1-te was admitt-ed m the Oistrict Hospital, Rajnandgaon. The said Banwati Ram ftled a cloum application seeking compensation for the permanent disability sustained by him. However; during the pendency of ckiim opplication, on 24.7.2009 snid Banwali Rom dted ond his legul representatives were brought on record and th^ have claimed a total sum of fts.8,42,000/- as compensation for the decrth of said Banwali Ram. 4. The Clainis Jribunal vide impugned awurd allowed clcum of •Mhe claumants, nwarded an amount^ fts.4,51.000/- as compensation and fastwied tnbility on The dppetlant herem *o satisfy the awiTrd. —— 5. We have heard learned counsel for -the parties. We have also perused the records of the Ckiims Tribunai. 6. Learned counsel for the appetkint hos submitted that infact ctaim petition was not maintamable os 1+ie same was filed on 21.4.2008 by the injured seeking compensoition for the injuries sustamed by him in •the accident in question. However, af-ter his death on 24.7.2Q09, •the Claims Trtounal treated the claim petition on behalf of the cktimants as if •ttie deceosed cBed due to accident in question, whereos he was not having ony such injury by which his Ueath could be caused as in Ihe accident his legs-were fractured only. 7. On the other hand, leamed counsel for respondents No.l d 2 has submitted that though said Bouiwali became permanent disable but he was continuously taking treatment and spendmg inoney for his treatment. He has fur-fcer submitted that he died because of the infection in his body on accewnt of injuries aistained by him in the said uccident. 8. In the facts and circumstanees af the present coae, we feel •that before passing -the awurd the Claims Tribunal shoutd have conducted tin enquiry regarding the cause of death of the deceased. Even in Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1968 it has been provkled that on receipt of cn >plication for compensation, the Claims Trjhjnal shatl hold an in<piry into the ckiim. Further, 5ection 169 of the Act, 1988 also prescribes proceAire and powers of the Ctaims Tribunal and soys that in hotding any inquiry under Section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subjeet to ony rules that may be nwde in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. The Claims Tribunat shall have all the poweps of a Civil Court for the purpose of tnking evidence on oath and of enforcing the crt-tenAince of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documaits ond materidd objects <md for such other purpo^s as moy be prescribed and the Ckiims Tpibunal shatl be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 ond Chopter XXVI of the Cr.P.C. Besides this, inftule 226 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 atso it has been provided that -the Claims Tribunal shall conduct enquiry toascertain •the fact'. 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Rfljkumor Vs. Ajay ICumar & anothw reported in 2010 (12) SCALE wherein the 1-lon'ble Apex Court^hos. s held that "......-the Tribunal dioutd not be a silent ^ectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuriesend their effeet, nparticukv 1he extent ofpenna'wft disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act inake it evident Ihat Ihe Tribunal dees not functien as a neutrvil wnpire cs in a ewil a.1it. but ce <m wrtiveexphirer evid seeker oiftni-th v^io isrequiped to 'hokl cvi enquiry mto the claiin' for determinwig Ifie 'Just comffersation'. Jhe Tribunal dhould Ifierefore take ovi active role to ascsrtain itie true end convct position so ifiat it ctin assess Ihe 'ftst compensation.....,.J1 , [O. For -riie foregoing reasons, we allew 1tie appeal in part, set aside the impugned award and remit •the matter back td the Ctaims Tribunal for taking decision afresh in ttght of observatiens made in this order. Needtess to mention that the Claims Tribunal shall provide opporhinity to •tfae parties to adduce further evidence, if ony, and amend the pleadings or to file documents or verify the documents already fited. The dunount, which is in fixed deporit, diall remain in the fb<ed deposit of a nationdized bank for a period of one year from today extendable from time te time. 11. The part'ies are directed to oppear before the Claims Tribunal concerned on 8 Auaust. 2011. The Registry js directed to tnnsmit reeord of the Cloims Tribynal cpncemed without further delay. No order as to costg^___—-— ~Sd/- G. Minha)uddin Judge Roshon/- - Sd/- DR. I-M.Quddusi Judge _>/