M,A,_NO,11077of_2004 Vlshwaratan Pandey S/o V.P. Pandey, aged.21 years, Present Address: C/o Shri P.K. Dubey, CSEB, Vidyut Nagar, Durg, Thsna Puigaon, Dlstt. Durg (C.G.) Permanent Address: Whits House; PO Box No.92, Rsst House, Road No.13, Kata.nl, Tah. & Dlstt. Katanj (M.P.) Versus ChalniaJ Patei S/o Shobhj? Patel, Aged 25 years, (Driver Matador No. IViP 23/D/5402) Address: Bharat Nagar, Opposlte F.C.J. Godown, House of Radhelai, Thana Gudlyarl, Ralpur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 1. 2. 3. Rahul Kumar Dubey S/'o Shjvkumar Dubey, Aged 34 years, (Owner of Matador No. MP 23D 5402). Address: L.I.G. 610, M.P. Houslng Board CoSony, Bhlial, Tah. & Djstt. Durg (C.G.) Ja! Vihar Colony, Ralpur, Tah. & Distt. Durg (C.G.) The Orientai insurance Company Ltd., C/o The Manager, Dlvisjonai Offjce, Malviya Nagar, Durg (C.G.) (Accidentai Matador No.23 D 5402 Bima Poiicy No.28569 upto 3.2.2003 Pressni : Shri Som Kant Verma, counsei for the appeliant. None for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is unserved. Shri Shallendra Sharma, counse! for respondent No.3. ACT ^€iswf^%. ^ fe/ fSinaie Bench: Hon'bie Nr. NX. Aaarwal, J.l on day ofApnl, 2010) This is clairnant's appeat against the award dated 20-07- 2004 in Cjaim Case No.77/2004 by Ninth Addltionai Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai, Durg, (for short 'the Trlbunaf'), whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.5000/- has been av/arded in favour of the. daimant directing the appeiiant to refund Rs.20,000/- out of the amount eariier swarded in appeiiant's favour under Sectlon 1 40 of the Motor Vehicles Act • (for short 'the Act'). 2. The facts brlefly stated are as under: On 03-04-2002, the appeilant along with his friend going on Hero Honda l^otorcycle bearing registration No. MP 20 YD 1917. Near Sabina Bar, Supeia Road, was dashed by Matador bearing reglstration No. MP 23 D/5402 as a resuit of which the appeljant sustained rnuitlpie Injuries. As per disabiiity certificate jssued by the Doctor, the appeiiant was permanentiy disabied to the extent of 20%. 3. The appeilant had fiied an appiication under Sectlon 166 of the Act ciairning Rs.1,92,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. 4. The appellantn"had aiso prsferred an applicatjon under Section 140 of the Act cjaiming no fault compensatlon.. Learned Tribunai on the basls of prlma facie evidence aliowed appeiiant's appilcation and awarded Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the appeliant. The same vi/as deposited by respondent No.S/'insurance Company before the Tribunal and the amount was aiso dlsbursed to the appeliant. 5. Learned Tribunai on appredation of evidence led, materia! placed and submissions made, awarded Rs.5,000/- only as compensation for the injuries sustained by the appeilant. Learned Tribunai further directed the appeliant for refund of the ...<E"\ /c^\1 t ."^" "I :^ <• <' amount of Rs.20,000/- after adjusting Rs.5,000/- from the amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded under Section 140 ofthe Act. 6. Learned counse! for the appeilant would contend that so far as the directjon to refund the amount of Rs.20,000/- from the amount awarded under Section 140 of the Act passed by the Tribunal is concerned, the same is ISIega! and deserves to be set aside. He would submit that there is no provision in the Act directlng refund of the amount av/arded under no fauSt which is in excess of the amount awarded under Section 166 of the Act. He would further submit that no fauftaward Is also appealabie like finai award. As respondent No.3/1nsurance Company has not fjled any appeai against no fault award, the same had attained finaijty. 7. On the other hand, learned counse! appearing for respondent No.S/insurance Company supported the award and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal has rightly passed the award which deserves to be upheld. 8. ) have heard learned counsei for the parties, perussd the award Impugned and records ofthe Tribunai. 9. !t is not in dispute that respondent No.3/1nsurance Company has not filed any appeai against the award passed in favour of the appellant before the Tribunal under Section 1 40 of the Act and the sarhe had attained finallty. Under Sectlon 140(3)(b) of the Act, if the amount of no fauit compensation is equai to or more than the amount of compensatlon awarded under Section 166 of the Act, the person responsible fbr payment of compensation shall not be Eiable to pay the amount of compensation awarded under Section 166 of the Act. (t no where says that the amount awarded under Section 140 of the Act if found more than what has been awarded under Section 166 of the Act, the same is required to be refunded. Learned Tribunal after hoiding prima facie enqulry had passed the no fault .,^^37:^.; & ^te^fe'v - ^ f award, there agajnst no appeai preferred by the respondent/lnsurance Company thus aiso attained finaiity. 10. !n view of above, in the considered opjnion of this Court, learned Tribunai has failen into error in djrecting the appeliant to refund the amount recelved under no fauSt award over and above the amount of compensation awarded under Section 166 of the Act to respondent No-3/Insurance Company. The abovs directlon deserves to be and Is hereby set aside. 11. For the foregoing, the appeai fited by the appeftantis ailowed in part. The appeilant shail not be required to refund the amount of Rs.20,000/- to respondent No.S/tnsurance Company. No order asto costs. Kvr Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge -.^