M.A. (C) NO. APPELLANTS IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.; 7:24 6;” [2009 Panchram aged 60 years S,’3Daduram (Father) Smt. Bhagmati Bai aged 58 y€ars W/O Panchram (Mother) Smt. Neer Bai aged 35 years W/O Late Firturam Patel (Wife) Ku. Khelan Bai aged 16 years D/O Late Fi$ ram (Daughter) Jeevanprakash aged 10Years S/O Late Firturam (Son) Guneetram aged 4 Years S/O Late Firturam (Son) Appellant no. 4,5and6 1's minor Through their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. NeerBal, All resident of Village Mohda P/S Hirri Tehsilz-Belha Dist. Bllaspur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Sakttar Singh aged 48 years S/O Surjeet Singh, R/O Heerapur Tatibandh, P/S Amanaka, Tehsil & Dist Raipur (C.G.) ( Driver 85 owner of Truck no. C.G.04.ZC.1726 ) The Oriental Insurance Company, Through Its Branch Manager, Infront of Adarsh Bal Mandir, Main Road Dhamtari Tehsil 8L Dist Dhamtari (C.G.) ( Inurance Company of The Truck ) VERSUS w“ “ GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR HI ' M.A.C. No. 1345/2009 @ APPELLANTS ‘ Panchram and others Versus RESPONDENTS Sakttar Singh and another DB:~ HON’BLE SHRI LM. QUDDUSI 81. HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, JJ PRESENT :- Shri Suresh Pandey, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Suryakant Mishra, Adv. for the respondent No. 2. O R A L O R D E R (27—8—2010) Per LM. QUDDUSI 1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned award dated 31- 7-2009 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 50/2007 whereby the Tribunal rejected the application filed by the claimants stating inter~alia that the deceased himself was negligent. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on the date of incident i.e. 25—10- 2006 deceased Firturam Patel along with his friend Rohit Kumar had gone to Bilha Railway station to see off his cousin Mani Patel on a TVS moped. At about 11 p.m. when they were returning their home, near Govind Dhaba Bilha turn, the driver of truck bearing registration No. CG O4/ZC 1726 parked the truck on the road without using back light, indicate. Due to darkness, the moped of the deceased dashed the truck in back side, as a result of which Firthram died on the spot due to the injuries sustained in the said accident. The claimants being father, mother, wife and children of the deceased filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘the Act’) before the Tribunal claiming Rs. 24,97,000/— as compensation for the death of deceased in the said accident. 8. A perusal of the impugned award dated 31-7—2009 shows that it has also not been mentioned in the award as to whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation under no fault liability. ...a:;-74——rn:;' / Maw am Chapter 140 of the X Act of the further Act provides provides for for liability liability to Without pay compensation fault. Section in @ i’ certain cases on the principle of no fault. Section 140(4) of the Act reads as under: “A claim for compensation under sub-section (l) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement.” Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of Tribunal. Therefore, we set aside the impugned award dated 31-7-2009 and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh decision. The Claim Application shall be restored and it shall be decided in the light of the observations made above. The Tribunal shall afford opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence and argue their case. The Tribunal shall decide the matter as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties. The records of the Claims Tribunal shall be sent back forthwith. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal along—with copy of this order on 20th of September, 2010. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. _ _ _ _ Sd/. Sd/_ N.K.Agarwal Judge I.M.Quddussi Judge WW Di ‘ i; l