A IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (Cl N0^^ l-~OF 2007 / R^pondents 0^ ^ ^' APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOT^R VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Appellant __ _ ^Gunavati Devi W/o Dhansai A' Nqn-Applicant No. 2 ^ Paikra, R/o Civil Lines (Police Line), Manedragarh, Tehsil - Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya (Chhattisgarh) Versus Manmati W/o Late Ram Singh, aged 50 years, R/o Village— Painaha, P.S. Khadgawan, Distt. Koriya (Chhaftisgarh) Ratiram S/o Late Ram Singh, aged 4 years Minor through Grand Mother - Manmati (Both R/o Village Painaha, P.S. Khadgawan, Distt. Koriya, (Chhattisgarh) Claimants Mohanlal S/o Molaiya Prasad, aged 26 years, R/o Village - Chainpur, P.S. Manendragarh, Distt. Koriya (Chhattisgarh) Non-Applicant no. 1 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office - Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) Non-Applicant no. 3 (Arising out ofAward dt. 13712.2006 passed by II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh in Claim Case No. 1402/2006 - Manmati 85 Others Vs. Gunavati Devi 85 Others) .Aba^--&^.'lle^- ^ y^' / ^- %^ < CLAIM IN APPEAL VALUED AT RS. 3,65.600/- FIXED COURT FEE AFFIXED RS. 15/- i^ ^ *> HI6H COURT OF CHMATnS6^RH AT MLASW^R &IVISIQN NENCH HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUbbUSI & HON'BLE MR. 6ULAM MINHAJU&&IN. JJ. M.A. fcl No.552/2007 ADpellant (Sunavati Devi Vs Resoonctents Manmati & 3 others Presents Miss Sharmila Sin9hai, Adv<Ncate for the appejlant. fAr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate for tiie resporiclent h^)4 <& 2» Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate for tha respon<tent No»3: ORDER(Orall astJuly,20U) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. By woy of this appcal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehtcles Act, 1988 (for short <the Act, 1988'), the cppelloBit^owner has dtaUenged the awapd dat«l 13.12.2006 passed by -riie leotmed 2nd Addititwal Motor Accident Chims Tribunal, Manendragarh (for short th®,Ckiims Tribunal') in Ctaim Ccee No.1402/2006. 2. Facts of Kie case. in brief, are that on 03.09.2004 the deceascd alon9 with his companions was retumin9 from Shivpur mari<et on his bicycle. When he reached near Sati Tempte of Village Chainari, a je^) bearing rogistratkm number C616-Z-0633, bein9 driven in rash <md negligent manner by its elriver, dashed the deceosed as a result of which deceased sustdned varlous injuries over his body and became unconscious. H€wos taken to the Prhnapy Health Centre, Chhadgawan for treatment from where hfe was referred to the Districl- Hospital, Baikun-riipur where he remained admittKJl fpom 04.09.2004 to 28.9.2004. However, he died on 01.11.2004 white undepgoing treatment. The claimants, who <are widow and son of deceaaed Adheen Sin^h. have fited the claim petttion se^king compensation to the tune of fts.l3,26,000/-on the ground -rfiat 1+iey vwre dependent on the deceased, who was the sde eaming member in family, and due tp his death, they have suffeped loss of inwme. '"^ .:y ^ 3. The Claims Tribunal allowed claim epplicatioR of the claimants, awarded a compaisation of Rs.3,65,600/- cuid fastened liability on the cppellant herein to poy compensotion. 4. Learned counsel for the appelkint has submitl'ed 1+»at thene is no r»xus between the death and accident of the deceasedand as ^uch Ifee oppeUant is not Ikxble to pcy any compansarrion as the Cteath is not 1he result of acddCTit in question. 5, On the other hand, leamed counsel for the re^wndent^claimants has supported the impugned award, 6. We have heard learm&d counsel for the parl'ies <md perused Ihe pecords Gf the Claims Trjbunal as also the findings given NTrtie unpygnedawarcl. 7. Upon perusal of the record we found that the <teceased sustained injt.ries in the motor accident dated 03.09.2004 and remained admifrt^ed in the OistNct Hospital, Baikunthpur upto 28.9.2004. He disd on Ot.11.2004. In the postmortem report atso aause of ctenth of the deoeaaed is mentioned as ttsud(den cardio arrest in natural course". Fur1+icr, no treathg doctor or the Medical Officer, who conducted llie postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, was excunined. Thus, contentiow vwased by the leamed counsel for the dppellant 1+iat there is no nexus between the death of the deceased and the accident is sustainable. However, as h- is not in di^Hite that the deceased had aistainedl injuries in the said acddeiit and got treatment from 03.09.2004 to 28.9.2004 in the &istrict Hespital, Baikunthpur and that Itie offaiding vehicte wws plied in brecch of the conditions of the insuronce policy, we are of the v»wthat the fl^ellant- ovwier is responsible to poy ^ie expenses incurred in the treatment of liw injuries sustained by the deceased in the said cKscident <arad for this the matt-er needs reconsideration at the end of the Claims Triburwrf. 8. In the reajlt, the cppe^itsucceeds. The inyu9nedawardis set asid®cmd the oppetlant is exonerated from the liability of payin9 compmsatton to thc ctaimants for the death of deceased Adhcen Singh. Howevep, smce vre have held that the claimants are entitted for the e^enscs incurred in the treatment of the deceased, the matter is remitt-ed back to the Claims Tribunal te ossess the same and make 1+ie award afne^i. Needless to mention ^K^ ^ ihat before takin9 any decision, the Claims Tribunal ^hall provide opportunity to the part-ies to adduce further evidence, if any;ond awend 1+ie pleadings or to fite documents or verify the documents already filed in 1+iis ^&gGrd, Thc amount, which is in fixed deposit, shall remain in •tfie fixeddqiosW' and renewal shall be obtained fronitimetotlmetillthe dec^ion is taken afresh. 9. The parties are dipected to appear before the Claims Trtbunal corusemed on 27th July. 2011. The Registry is drrected to tnmsmit recQrd of the ctaims Tribunal concerned withoutfurtiier deloy. No onter <^ t@ costs. 10, Cert'ified^copYjM^er rutes. Sd/- l.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge