BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR VSViSji MISC.APPEAL fCI No. S S.Glt ^ /ae*8— /' APPELLANT /: XAIMANT 'Kulesh @ Kuleshwar Sahu, S/o Shri Mahadev Sahu Aged about 32 Years, R/o Mangal Bazar, Kundrapara Gudiyari, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur, (C.G.) ^ RESPONDENTS: lOJM-APPLICANTS -.••NS-/.-"' ^'^y^ ^l^"/^^ ^y^y ^ VERSUS l./ Yogeshwar @ Yadram Sahu, S/o Shri Mahadev Sahu Aged about 35 Years, R/o Mangal Bazar, Kundrapara Gudiyari, Raipur, (C.G.) (Driver of Vehicle Maruti 800 bearing Regd. No. C.G. 04 B 5864) rA ../ d€^ o 1y Pradeep Pillai S/o Shri P.K. Pillai, Aged bout 35 years R/o J-752, Janta Colony, Gudiyari, Raipur, C.G. (Owner of Vehicle Maruti 800 bearing Regd. No. C.G. 04 B 5864) ,3.^Fhe Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. C.B.O.-2, Madina Building , 1st floor, Jail Road Kutchery Chowk Raipur, C.G. (Insurer of Vehicle Maruti 800 bearing Regd. No. C.G. 04 B 5864) ,4. Chief Divisional Manager Railway, East Coasf Railway Sambalpur, Orissa. APPBAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTORVEHICI.E ACT, 1988 ^ ~il HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH. BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble I. M. QUDDUSI 85 Hon'ble PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ APPELLANTS: RBSPONDEWTS: M.A^l.No. 5/2011 Kiilesh @ Kuleshwar Sahu Vs. , Yogeshwar aad others MISaAPPEAL UNDBRSECTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VBHICLE8 ACT, 1988 Appearaace: •" Shri Satyendra Sahu, counsel for fhe appeUaats. Siat. Chitra Shrivastava, cbunsel for respondent no.3. Shri Viaod Deshniukh, on behalfofSIiri P.S. Koshi, counsel for respondent no.4. ORAL ORDBR (10.03.2011) As per I.M. QUDDUSI, J, 1. This appeal Iias been filed ^ainst fhe inipugned award dated 13.09.2010 passed by X Additional Motor Accident Claims Tnbunal, Raipur, in C]aim Case No. 191/2009 disiaissing the clatm petition on the ground that the claimant had perfonned remarriage after deafh of his wife in the accident. 2. Brief facts of fhe case as per the version of the clauuaats are tUat on 27.4.2008 respondent no.l Yogeshwar @ Yadram. Sahu alongwitfa. his famUy members was gpiag froni Raipiir to viUage Rasni by Maruti Car bearfug Rega.No.04-B/5864 for treatment of lus wife who was suffering Leukeiiua. After treattuent at Rasui, they were going to village Borid to ineet their relatives. Respondent no. 1 was driving the car slowly aad steadUy, On the vay, at about 11.15 a.m., when the car reached railway crossiug it could not stop there due to N1^.; '<i$2.:A ^.. 'fe-,.-^! ^- /"• failure of brakes and inoved over fhe raUway Ime, but ia fhe meaatime, the Train Engme bearmg No. 14618 forcibly dashed back portion of the said car, as a result of which deceased Kimakshi Sahu as -also her other relatives who were also tra.veUing ia the said Car i.e., Moksh Kumar Sahu, Rashiai Sahu, Ku. Kuki @ Purvi Sahu died on fhe spot whereas Ku. Pranjal, daughter of non-appUcaat no.l also succuinbed to the mjuries in the hospital. In the iastaat appeal^ deceased Kimakshi was wife of appeUant At fhe timp of accident, fhe deceased was a young woinau of 28 years old; she was workiag as headinistress aad was eamiag Rs.4000/- per nionfh. Appellant beiag legal representative/dependent, inade claiin for the untimely death of deceased Kunakshi to the ttuie of Rs.6,61,000/- with 12%interest. The Tribunal has rejected the claiin petition on the groiind that ffae clfiimant has performed second inairiage aad furfher fhe aanual in.come of fhe deceased was shown as inore fhaa Rs.40,000/- per anniim aad such claun u/s 163- A was not niauitaaiable. Leamed counsel for fhe appeUaat has placed reliance on s. decision of the Apex Court in case of Sint. SStmju.ri Bera -Vs- Orlental Jnsurance Compcmy Ltd. and another, AER 2007 SC 1474 in which Hon'ble the Apex Court has held tbat "....'No fault liabiLity' envisaged ia Section 140 of the said Act, is distinguishable from fhe rule of "Strict LiabUily. In the fonner, the coinpensation amount is fixed. It is Rs.50,000/- m cases of death [Section 140(2)]. It is a statutory UabiUty. It is aa amoiuit which can be deductec J/^ 's&B»<'y b^. ^'^^' ~i> froru fhe final auiount awarded bv the Tribuxial. Siace the atuouiit is a fixed amouiit/ciystaUized auiount, the same has to be considered as part ofthe estate ofthe deceased. In the present case, fhe deceased was aa eaming meinber. The statutory coiapensation coiild constitute part of Iiis estate. His legal representative, namely his daughter has iaherited tiis estate. She was entifled to inherit his estate. In fhe circiunstances, she was entitled to receive coiapensation uuder "No fault Liabiliy u/s 140 of the said Act. That section is a Code by itself wifhia fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988". 6. In view offhe above, we are offhe opiuion that ia the case of no loss of depeBdency, if the clafanaat is a legal representative he sbaU be entitled to receive coiupensation uuder no-fault Uability as inentioned ia secdon 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. Therefore, fhe inatter requires reconsideration at the end of the Tnbimal for decision afi-esh. 8. Hence, we atlow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned award aad reinit the matter back to the Tnbunal for decision afi-esh iu the Ught of the observations made above. Needless to mention fhat the parties shaU be aUowed to amend fhe pleadings, adduce fiufher evidence, file the documents or get the docuiaents verified ete.,. aud fhereafter fhe decision shatl be taken afresh by fhe Claims Tribunal. The records of the Tribunal shall be sent back forfhwith. No order as to costs. Sd/- LM-Quddusl Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge