Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 331 (CHH)

TIRATH RAM SAHOO v. TARUN KUMAR MARAR

2011-10-11

G.MINHAJUDDIN, I.M.QUDDUSI

body2011
ORDER 1. This appeal has been filed by the Claimant against the impugned order dated 25th October, 1999 passed by the Fifth Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G) in Claim Case No. 57/1998 dismissing the claim petition. 2. The injured claimant has filed claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the award of a total compensation of Rs.5 lakhs alleging that on 29.9.1993 the claimant along-with his friend Dr. Hemendra Kumar was coming from his village Mahuda to Raipur by Rajdoot Motor-Cycle. Dr. Hemendra was driving the said motorcycle. At about 7.30 p.m., when they reached near Raj Kumar College, Raipur, one Jeep bearing Regn.No.C.I.T. 404 allegedly driven by non-applicant no.1 in a rash and negligent manner dashed and ran over the motorcycle from back side, as a result of which, he became unconscious. The persons available at the place of accident brought him to D.K.Hospital. The report was lodged by Dr. Hemendra Kumar. According to the claimant, due to the said accident, the right leg of the claimant below the knee was amputated and he became permanently disabled and was unable to perform his duties. 3. Learned Claims Tribunal held that the accident as alleged by the claimant was not proved and Dr. Hemendra Kumar was driving the Motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. The owner and insurer of Motor Cycle bearing Regn.No.M.P.T.4992 were not impleaded as party respondents, therefore, the claimant is not entitled to get any compensation. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the Tribunal. 5. The claim petition was dismissed on two grounds. The first ground is that the driver of the motorcycle, on which, the claimant was traveling as pillion rider as well as the insurance company were not impleaded as the party respondents in the claim petition. The second ground is that the accident as alleged by the claimant is not proved. In such circumstances, the Tribunal should have conducted proper enquiry to explore the truth regarding the accident as envisaged in U/S 168 & 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 226 of the Motor Vehicles Rules 1994 and then only after determination of true facts, the award should have been made but that has not been done. In such circumstances, the Tribunal should have conducted proper enquiry to explore the truth regarding the accident as envisaged in U/S 168 & 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 226 of the Motor Vehicles Rules 1994 and then only after determination of true facts, the award should have been made but that has not been done. Further the Tribunal should not have treated the claim petition as if the same was a civil suit and should not have dismissed the claim petition on the ground of non-joinder of the parries. The claimant should have been granted an opportunity to implead the insurance company as well as the owner of the motorcycle but no opportunity was given to the claimant by the Tribunal. 6. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another decided on 18th October, 2010 Hon'ble the Apex Court held that the claim petition should not be treated as a civil suit and it is the duty of the Tribunal to conduct an enquiry. In para 11 of the said case, it has been further held that Sections 168 & 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 inquiry into the claim' 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'. 7. It has been provided in Rule 226 of C.G. 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 sectionl68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides that on receipt of an application for compensation made U/S 166, the Claims Tribunal shall after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim 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 in the present case, the Tribunal without conducting any enquiry, I as discussed above, has straight-away dismissed the claim of the appellant. 8. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Tribunal. Hence, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned award dated 25.10.1999 and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for decision afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove, 9. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence, file documents or get the documents verified etc., and thereafter the Tribunal shall make the award afresh at the earliest preferably within a period of 3 months. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 28th of November, 2011. The records of the Tribunal shall be sent back forthwith. No order as to costs. Case Remanded.