L.- ^.-^•^->- --: .' t/ .^'^-V^-U^'^'-O-tJ'&'C 'C-^'V. •^"U C !- APPELLANTS 1. siE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILAS (C.G. M.A.faNO. [^\Cf OF2008rD.R.) .^l '^A/ .^4^- K^ ^y,^ ^-' ^y :•/ <?x^"' ^^p-y RESPONDENTS 1. s ^- 2. T Onkar PrasadS/o Punnidas Satnami, aged about 42 years, R/o Village Semariya, Police Station Dharsinwa, District Raipur (C.G.). (Driver ofthe vehicle) Ishwar Prasad S/o Punnidas Koshle, aged about 31 years, R/o Village Semariya,Police Station Dharsinwa, District Raipur (C.G.). (Owner of the vehicle) VERSUS Arun Kumar Manhare, aged about 22 years, S/o Late Jhumuklal Manhare, R/o Village Amethi, Police Station Aarang, District Raipur (C.G.). (Claimant) Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.). (Insurer) ^-^^^SCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLEACT. 1988 !t.^rMl 1 :..fl iH r;j r s> KIGK COURT OF CHKATTISGARH AT BILASFUR M.A. fa N0. 1219 OF 2008 APPELLANTS SESPONDENTS Onkai'- Prasad aiid aiiother. Versus Arun Kumar Maniiai~'e aiid another. AFPBAL UNDER 3ECTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VBHICLES ACT, 1988 Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri I.M. Ouddusi SB Hon'ble Shri G. Minhaiuddia. JJ. Present; Sl-u'i M.K. Bhadui'i, comisel for tlie appeUants, None for respondents No. 1, thougl-i sei-ved. Shri A.K. Athaley, coiinsel for Respondent No.2. ORALORDBR (Passed ©n2nd day ofAugiist; 2011) Per LM. Quddusi. J. Tl-iis appeal has been filed agali-ist tlie impugiied awai'd dated 27-09-2007 passed by ti-ie Tentl-i AddlUonal Motor Accident Claiius Tribuiial (F.T.C.), Ralpui\(for shoi-t tiie Tribunal) m Clami Case No. 113/2006 by the driver aiid owner of tlie veliicle. ^ • • / •' c 2. The clalni petitiou was filed b}/ tlie claunaiit "tUider Section 163-A oftiie Motor Vel-ucles Act, 1988. 3. Brlef facts of the case ai'e tiiat on 12-05-2006 at about 1-30 iii the mgtit, respondent No. 1/clamiaiit hereiii was traveliiig m Jeep beai'ing registi'atlon No. 04-ZA/8005 froni Raipur. N-eai' Village TmidUi, the said Jeep dashed agaltist tiie Truck, as a result of wliich respondent No. l/ clalmaiit sustaiiied fi-actui'e iii lils left leg. He got operated aiid his left leg was aniputated. He had remaliied at hospital for two montlis for his ti'eatiiient However, he .^';-,,^v^^\ (f ^ 1 ^. ^,, %.,;]fcy © becarne perinaueutly disabled. Report of fhe accident was glven to the Pollce Station Pitlioura aiid a cruiie case was reglstered agaiiist driver/appellaiit No. 1. 4. The respondent No. 1/clakuant had filed a petition under Sectlon 163-A of the Motor Veliicles Act (for shoit the Act?) before the Claims Tribuaal claimuig a total compensation of Rs.21,27,000/- for the mjmy sustained by lum ui the accident. 5. The learned Tribunal ou a close scrutiny of evidence led, material placed aiid submissions made by tiie pai'ties, has awai'ded a total smn of Rs.5,22,837/- along witil uiterest @ 6% per aiinmn. 6. We have perused fhe record of the Tribunal aad fourid that the clamiaiit limiself stated ui his statement that hls monflily iiicome was Rs.4,500/- meaiiuig th.ereby that the amiual iiicome of the claiuiaiit was Rs.54,000/-. The claini petition under Section 163-A of the Act was maintainable orily where the maximum annual income is up to Rs.40,000/-. 7 , Hoii?ljle Apex Court ui Deepal Oirishbhod Sord csnd others vs. United Jncfia Insurance Ca. LtdL^ Barodd} reported in (2004) 5 SCC 385, has held iii pai'a 67 as uiider: "67. We, tlierefore, are of the opiruon fliat Kodala has correctly been decided. However, we do not agi'ee with the fiiidings m Kodala tliat if a person invokes provisions of Section 163-A, the annual income of Rs. 40,000 per aiiiimii shall be ti'eated as a cap. ui oui" opuilon, the proceeding mider Section 163-A beiiig a social secm'ity provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose aiuiual hicome Is up to Rs. 40,000 caii take the ai u^ beneflt tliereof. AU oflier- clalins ai'e requii'ed to be determined iii terms of Chapter XII of theAct.?? 6. In view of tiie above, we are of tl-ie opinion that tlie clalm petitiou under Sectlon 163-A of the Act was not mauitainable. Therefor-e, we allow tliis appeal in pait aiid set aslde tiie unpugned award dated 27-09-2007 wifli llberty to tl-ie respondent No.l/claimaiit to file a claim petltion uiider- tiie law avaUable to 1'jlm. 7. If ariy aiiiount has been deposited either by flie InsLU'aiice Compaitiy or by tiie owner-/appellai~it No.2 shall be refunded to tliem forfliwitli. 8. No order as to costs. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge .^.w^ P:vr l^ ^is^