Allowed

Dileep Kumar Jangde v. Kumar Sahu and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC6 Feb 2012MAC/1234/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed an appeal against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court set aside the award dismissing the claim and remitted the matter to the Claims Tribunal, holding that the Tribunal failed to conduct the active inquiry mandated by the Act regarding the accident's cause and did not summon contradictory witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award set aside and matter remitted to the Claims Tribunal to decide the claim application afresh after following proper enquiry procedures.

Dileep Kumar Jangde Vs Kumar Sahu and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

^•-^•V^---^'Y Y - -L.-^--C'~U ^-V,'^<LC'V '^"t ,f\J^\J'.y^^

¶2

"^^<^ I'i

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATraS6ARH ' AMSELLANEOUS APPEAL (C) N0. - ;^3^ QF 2011^.^_., (MEMORANDUM^OFAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTQR yEHIC S ACT, 1988) APPELLANT ^bilfiiep Kymar Jangde, 5/o Lalardm Jangde

¶4

^bilfiiep Kymar Jangde, 5/o Lalardm Jangde aged about 25 years/ R/o- Village - Amavas, Police Station <& Posf - Tumgaon/ DistrictMahasamund (C.&.)

¶5

(^flMANT

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

RESPONbENTS ^ ly^ Kumar Sahu S/o Kirtan Sahu aged about

^&N-aAlMANTS/^/^

^.
<<br>

"-^. ^

30 years, R/o - Vtllage-Kanpa/PoliceStation/ - Tumgaon, Tahsil <& bistrict- Mahasamund . [Driver (c-6-) ofvehicle Tractor bearing registration No. C.G.Q4- DA/6227 . ] .

¶13

bau Lal Sahu, S/o Tiju Rarn SahuR/o Village- Kanpa, Police Station, - Tumgaon, Tahsil <& District- Mahdsamund (C.G.) [Registered Owner of vebicle Tractor bearing registration No. C.G.04" DA/6227]

¶14

The Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Umited^hpough Branch Manager,BranchOffice,MadjnaBuilding,Jdil Road, Raipur, Distnct - Raipur (C.G.) [Insurer ofvehicle Tractor bearing registration No. C.G.04- DA/6227]

¶15

MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNbER SECnorri73 OF TRE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988

¶16

¶17

HI6H COURT OF CHHATriS^RH AT BILASPUg

¶18

HON'SLE DR. Z.M.QUDDUSZ & HON'BLE MR. 6. MINHAJUDDIhLJ'J, M.A. [cl No. 1234/2011

¶19

^ppellant Dileep Kumar Jangde Vs

¶20

ft®ssond@nts Kumar Sahu & others

¶21

Present:

¶22

Mr, Dharmesh ShrivGStava, Advocote for the appellant. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate with Mr< Vikram bixit, Advocate for the respondent Nos.l <& 2.

¶23

QRDER (Orai) (6th February, 2012)

¶24

Dr.I.M. Quddusi. J;

¶25

L By way of this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 (for short lthe Act'), the appelbnt-ciaimant has impugned the award dated 09.09.2011 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Cldtims Tribunal, ftaipur (for short lthe Cbims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.122/11,

¶26

..^

¶27

Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 31.5,2010 deceased Pramiia Bai was traveiling in tractor bearjng registration number CS04-DAM6227. When the said tractor reached near the canGl of Village Pandhi, on account of rash and negligent driving by its driver sasd Pramiia Bai fetl down and the tractor ran over her as a result of which she died on the spot. fteport of the accident was todged in the Pofice Station Aarang. The claimant, who is husband of the deceased, had filed a claim application before the Ctaims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.20,96,000/- on the ground that on account of death of the deceased, he has suffered loss of income as the deceased was earning Rs.120/- per day,

¶28

The Cbims Tribunal vide impugned award dismissed the ciaim application on the ground that the deceased herself was responsible for the accident and therefore the claimant is hot entitled for any compensation,

¶29

4* We have heard learned counsel for the appettant and the respondents No.l

¶30

& 2 and perused the records. ^——

¶31

¶32

The Ctaims Tribunal relying on the evidence of eye-witness Horila! Yadav (AWa2), who has stated that the deceased was trying to climb on the tractor and in that process she fell down, has dismissed the claim apptication holding that since the deceased herself was responsible for the accident, no compensation can be granted to the claimant.

¶33

-'l'

¶34

6, We have perused the statement of Horilal Yadav (AW-2) and found that in the examination-in-chief this witness has stated that the deceased was sitting on the tractor, but in the cross-exaroination he has stoted that the deceased was trying to climb on the tractor. Thus, it js evident that the Horilal Yadav (AW-2) has made contradictory statements in his evidence. Further, a glance of the final report filed by the police under Sectson 173 of the Cr.P.C, i.e. charge sheet, shows that the police have shown three eyewitnesses of the accident namely Horilal (AW-2), Manoj Banjare, son of Shri Munna Banjare <& Bhuru ©Rameshwar Sahu, son of Shri Bihari Sahu, but the Cbims Tribunal has not tried to summon other two eye-witnesses when contradictory statement came from Horilal Yadav (AW-2). The Ctaims Tribunal should have summoned the criminal case record to peruse the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of Cr.P.C* and aiso the statements, if any, given before the Criminal Court by these witnesses.

¶35

It is settled position that the Ciaims Tribunal shoutd not have treated the ciaim appfication as a civil suit as it is the duty of the Claims Tribunal to conduct an enquiry to findout the truth as provided under Sections 168 & 169 of the Act and the ftule 226 of the C.G. AAotor Vehicle Ruies, 1994 and for this view we are supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & another reported in 2010 (12) SCALE wherein in Para-11 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-

¶36

"11. The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in re9ard to the injuries and their effect, in particular the extent of permanent^disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunai does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civii suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to lhold an enquiry into the cbim' for determining the tjust

¶37

¶38

compensation'. The Tribunai shoufd therefore take an active roie to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the ljust compensation.....„*."

¶39

In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the matter

¶40

¶41

Accordingly, the oippea! is allowed in part, the Jmpugned award is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Claims Tribuna! with a direction to decide the claim application afresh in light of the observations made in this order. The Claims Tribuna! shall provide opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, amend the pteadi¥ngs, file documents or verify the documents atready filed and also follow the provisions^{ofSections168,169oftheActandRule226oftheRules,} 1994.

¶42

lO.The parties are directed to appear before the Ciaims Tribunal concerned on 29 March. 2012. The Registry is directed to transmit record of the

¶43

Claims Tribunal without further delay. No order as to costs.

¶44

Sd/Dr. I.M. Quddusi Judge

¶45

SA/-

¶46

, ^inbaiuddin Judge

¶47

Dileep Kumar Jangde v. Kumar Sahu and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileep Kumar Jangde v. Kumar Sahu and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Agrawal Iron Industries Vs Steel Auhtority of India Ltd. and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Yogeshwari Bai and Ors.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Omkar Aprasad and Ors.

Salik Ram and Others Vs Mahan Singh and Others

Smt.Fudni Bai and Others Vs Anil Kumar Gupta and Others

Mohan Lal Sahu and 0RS Vs Saubhagyavati Bai and Ors.