IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C .G.) ‘b M.A.No. 6Q /2003 mviawn much g , Ramhin Bai W/o Late Shri Vichitra Ram Lodhi, aged about 55 years, R/o Vill. Kheda, P.S. Nandghat, Dist. Durg at present Chatidih, Bilaspur (C.G.) Ap ellan€ pplicant VERSUS Re‘sponaent s f. : 1. Rammurat @ Teriaya @ Ballikhan S/o shri Laxmiprasad, aged 25 years, R/o Vill.Navagaon,P.S. Navagaon, Chitrakut, Di st . Satana (M.P.) Jee 20.9. Drlver 99‘ LicencerNo. 550/99 Rameshvar Prasad Upadhyay S/o -Shri Ramsajivan Updhyay, R/o Vill.Sitapur, P.S. Karvi, Dist. Chitrakut (U.P') Eranch Manager, The National Inshurance Co.Ltd., Gopal Complex, Riva Road, Semariya Chowk, Satana (M.P.) / ‘_/ MISC.APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 ’RULE 1 (A) OF TgEz" CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE READ WITH SECTION 173 OF THE CODE OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACE1988 nil, i an . x] Versus Respondents Rammurat ahas Terlya ahas Balhkhan & others DB Hon’ble Mr Justlcel M Quddus1 85 Hon’ble Mr Justlce N K Agarwal Shri Bharat Rajput, Advocate for the appellants. Ms Pushpa Dwivedi, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Sri Kumar Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Shri Ashok Kurn'ar Gupta, Advocate for the respondent Not 3'. o R D E R (Oran (Passed on this 5th day of October, 2010) Heard. 1. The aforementioned both the appeals are being decided by this common order as both the claimants have filed thelr claim petltions 1n regard to the acc1dent occurred on 20 1 2000 by the vehicle — Jeep, bearing registration No M B A 9856 owned by the non applicant No 2 and driven by the non applicant No 1 The vehicle was insured With the non—applicant No.3. Brief facts, in nutshell are that on 20.1.2000 due to the rash and egligent driving of the driver of the vehicle in question, it was met‘with an accident near Semaria turning on Chitrakoot -— Satna road As a result of the acc1dent Vichitra Ram (husband of claimant Ramhin Bai) died on the spot and other passengers, including the claimant Kunwar Singh received inju‘ries. In connection with the incident an offence was registered at Crime No 8/2000 and a Criminal Case No 184/2000 is pending before the C J M Satna / n HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. No. 660 of 2003 Appellant Kunvar Singh Versus Respondents Rammurat ahas Terlya ahas Balhkhan 8r, others And M.A. No. 661 of 2003 Appellant r Ramhin Bai The M.A.No. 660/2003 arises from the award dated 81.1.2003 passed by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in Claim Case No. 84/2002, wherein the claimant Kunwar Singh had filed the claim petition for award of a total compensation of Rs. 17,50,000/— under various heads due ‘to injuries sustained by him in the accident. Learned Tribunal having regard to facts and situation held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 5000/- only but directed to return the claim petition under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for its proper presentation before the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, having jurisdiction. The M.A.No. 661/2003 arises from the award dated 31.1.2003 passed by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 1/2002, wherein the claimant Ramhin Bai, widow of Vichitra Ram Lodhi, had filed the claim petition for award of a total compensation of Rs. 20,70,000/— under various heads on the ground that his husband died in the accident. Learned Tribunal, having regard to facts situation directed to return the claim petition under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 of the Civil‘Procedure Code for its proper presentation before the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, having jurisdiction. The Tribunal has also directed the claimant t0 refund the amount of interim award of Rs. 51,558/- to the Insurance Company, which was granted vide order dated 11.7.2001 and paid to the claimant on 2.3.2002 vide cheque No. 0013850. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, having regard to the facts situation and having perused the papers available on record, we are of the opinion that the preliminary issue of jurisdiction decided by the Tribunal is correct. We up held the same as the M.A.C.T. Bilaspur was ‘not having jurisdiction. HoWever, since the claim petition has been ordered to be returned for'proper presentation, the amount of no fault liability, which has been withdrawn by the appellantJRamhin Bai in M.A.No. 661/2003) shall not be recovered from the appellant and the same shall be adjusted while passing the final award by the competent M.A.C.T., having jurisdiction. o It is further directed that in case the appellant Ramhin Bai fails to present the claim petition within a period of one month from the date of its return by the M.A.C.T., Bilapur, it will be deemed that the claimant is not intending to present the claim petition before the M.A.C.T. having jurisdiction and in that event it would be open to the Insurance Company/Non-applicant No.3 to recover the said amount from the claimant. With the above observation both the appeals stand disposed of. No order asto costs. The Registry is directed to send back the papers, requisitioned Thakur i l 1 from the Tribunal, forthwith. 5d!- l ‘ Stil- ..1.M.Quddu5'[ (:- Judge N. K. Agarwa' Judge