d) IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. fC) No ^l^_/2011 Bend APPELLANT/ CAbplicant) .Smt. Pramila Tiwari W/o Late Shri Amit Tiwari, aged about 34 years, R/o Quarter No. 105/A/4 Balco Nagar Korba Tahsil & Distt.- Korba (C.G.). RESPONDENT/ /fNon-Applicant) VERSUS ^l.^ The New India Insurance Company Limited, Zonal Office: The New India Insurancjp Company Limited, Transport Nagar Korba Tahsil & Distt.- Korba (C.G.). (INSURER OF MARUTI ALTO N0. C.G. 12/D6657) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S.173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 t___ »;.^»^M^ VW,^ HI6H COURT OF CHH^TTISGARH AT BILASPt^ DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSZ & HON'BLE MR.6ULAM MINH^JUDDIN. JJ <App€llant ftespondent A^_[cLNG_679/2011 Smt. Pramih Tiwari Vs The New India Insurance Co, Ltd< Ksent: Mr< Sameer Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Deepak ^upta, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER (Oral) (22nd November, 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appeilant has filed this appeai against the award dated 31.3,2011 passed by the tearned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in CIaim Case No.104/2009 dismissing the claim application. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 1,8.2008 the daimant along with her husband and daughter was going towards Raipur from Baico Nagar, Korba in 1 Maruti Aito car bearing registration number C&04-JA-6865. When they ) reached near Baksara Police Station, Simga, the driver of truckbearing registration number CG12-&-6657, which was going ahead of the car of the claimant, atl of sudden applied brakes as a result the said car hit the truck resulting in death of her daughter and husband. The claimant fiied a claim apptication under Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 ^or short lthe Act, 1988') seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.8,20,000/- for the death of her daughter. 4. The Claims Tribunai vide impugned award dismissed the claim application of the claimants on the ground that driver of the Mamti Car himseif was negligent and therefore, the claimant is not entitled to receive any amount 6f compensation under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988. :^^fe£ ^. ^!""^",,^' ^^^••^^ 5, LeGrned counsel for the appellant-claimant has submitted that the dppellGnt should not have been denied legitimate compensation as under the Act, 1988 there is a specia! provision i,e, Section 163-A, where there is no necessity to plead or establish the negligence or wrongful act or default and thus, the Ciaims Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting the claim of the claimant. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have aiso perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 7. Before adverting to the question raised before us, we may notice the stati^tory provisions contained in the Act, 1988. 8. Section 163-A (2) of the Act, 1988 envisages that "OT 0/7^ c/a/w fo/' compensatson under sub-section (1), the claimant shafl nat be re^uired +o plead or estabfish that 1^e deaiii ar permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or negfect or default of the owner1 of the vehicle or vehicle^concerned or ofany ather person" 9. In the matter of Deepal fiirishbhai Sorsi and others Vs. United India Insuranc®Co. Ltd.. Baroda reported in (2004) 5 SCC 385 the Hon'bte T Supreme Court has held in Para-66 thus:- "66, We may notice that Section 167 of the Act provides that where death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to claim of compensation under the Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, he cannot claim compensation under both the Acts. The AAotor Vehicies Act contains different expressions as, for exampte, "under the provision of the Act", "provisions of this Act", "under any other provisions of this Act" or "any pther law or otherwise". In Section 163-A, the expression "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force" has been used, which goes to show that Parliament intended to insert a non obstante ciause of wide nature which wouid mean that the provisions of Section 163-A would appiy despite the contrary provisions existing in the said Act or any other law for ^ the time being in force. Section 163-A of the Act covers cases where even negligence is on the part of the victim. It is by way of an exception to Section 166 and the concept of sociaj justice has been duly taken care of." "^- lO.Moreover, in the instant case the policy is a package policy and as per circular of the Insurance Regulatory ond bevelopment Authority dated 16.11.2009/ addressed to all the Seneral Insurance Companies, the insured's liability in respect of occupant (s) carried in a private car and pillion rider carried on two-wheelers is covered under the Standard AAotor Package Policy, 11. Therefore, we are of the view that finding arrived at by the Claims Tribunal that the driver of Maruti Car was negli9ent and therefore the claimant is not entitled for any compensation is erroneous and the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the appeai is allowed in part, impugned award is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the ClGims Tribunal for taking decision afresh sn !ight of the observations made in this order. Needless to mention that the Claims Tribunal shali provide opportunity to the parties to adduce further evldence, if ony, and amend the pleadir^gs or to file documents or verify the documents already fi!ed. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal concerned on 11.01.2012. IS.The.Registry is directed to transmit record of the ClGims Tribunal without 'further delay. No order as to costs. 14,Certified copy as per rules, ftoshan/- Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge