INTHE ATBBLASPUR Misc-ApreALe (^ PFSS8;;t^.i.f3h" ff td.......^^./a. /W (D.B.) APpR^JANT- / CLAIM&NT ^SANTOSH KUMAR S/0: BHAGA.T RAM SAHU, AGE^, R/0: P.0.: SARAGAON, DISTMCT: RAIPUB. VERSU8 RESPONDENTS: 2. NABENDRA PANDEY S/0: D.P. PANDEY, R/0: P.0.: SASAGAON, DISTMCT: BAIPUR. (Owner ofMinidot C.G.04/T/3196) DFKO-TOKyO GHSERAL INSUBANCE CO. Ld. THROUGH: OPHCER IN CHARGE, OFPICE AT: LM. GANGA SHOPPING COMPI^X, G.E. ROAD, RAIPUR, DISTMCT; RAIPUR. (Insurei ofMinidot C.G.04/T/3196) t^^-'' APPEAL U/S 173 0V MOTOR VE3HICUE ACT 1988, FOR ENHANCE MENT OF AWARD VELUE30 (S. Rs.6.74>000/>- o ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR.GULAM MINHAJUDDIN. JJ M.A. rCI No.598/2010 Appellant Santosh Kumar Vs Respondents Narendra Pandey & another Present: Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents though served. ORDER(Oral) (9mAugust,2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appellant-ctaimant has filed this miscellaneous appeal against the award dated 15.10.2009 passed by the learned 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (FTC), Raipur (for short. 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.115/09. 3. Facts ofthe case, in brief, are that on 25.9.2007 at about 8.15 a.m. the injured claimant was going towards Raipur from Saragaon in the mini bus bearing registration number CG04-T-3196. He was driving that vehicte. When he reached near Donde-Khurd Housing Board, atl ofa sudden thetyre ofsaid mini bus got burst and he lost control over it and dashed it with an unknown tractor as a result of which he sustained fracture in his right leg apart from other injuries. He was immediately taken to hospital for treatment. Report of the accident was lodged in the Police Station Dharsiva. The injured claimant filed claim application seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.6,74,000/- for the permanent disability sustained by him in the said accident. 4. Ttie Claims Tribunal vide impugned award dismissed the claim application of the claimants on the ground that the claimant failed to prove his case and therefore he is not entitled to receive any amount of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that the appellant should not have been denied legitimate compensation as under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act, 1988') there is a special provision i.e. Section 163-A, where there is no necessity to plead or establish negligence or wrongful act or default and thus, the Claims Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting the claim ofthe claimants. la'i.,^ ""'•^,. % '%. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 7. Section 163-A (2) of the Act, 1988 envisages that "in any ctaim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent cSsabtement in respect of which the claim has been made was dis to any wfongful act or neglect or default ofthe cwnerofthe vetvcle orvehicles concemedorofanyotherperson." 8. Thus, it is clear that the claimant is not required to plead or establish any wrongful act or neglect or default and even if there was negligence on the part of the driver, which comes within the category of "any other person", the injured seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him cannot be denied compensation on the ground that he himself was the responsible for the accident. 9. tn view of the above, we are of the opinion that contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant has substance and the impugned award passed bythe Claims Tribunal is liabte to be set aside. lO.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned avrard is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Claims Tribunal for taking decision afresh in light of the observations made in this order. Needless to mention that the Claims Tribunal shalt provide opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, and amend the pleadings or to file documents or verify the documente already filed. In case the claimant wants to convert the ctaim application into Section 140 or 166 of the Act, 1988, then the Claims Tribunal shall provide an opportunity to him. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunalconcerned on21stSeDtember,2011. 11.The Registry is directed to transmit record of the Ctaims Tribunal concerned without further delay. No order as to costs. Roshan/- Sd/- I.M.'Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge / —i»i," ^-<^ :D rir''T-^rv^^yr^sfrw^^^tasKvs.'Trsffn^'ss^f^