^ r Ti\"i»c.?. BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR M.A.fC) N0. /;^5- /2007 MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACL 1988 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS ^^ %^V73, ^ RESB0NDENTS VERSUS .> jf^^.-i ... ^ ^ ^^ oQ k-> 2,, ^ Lalita aged about 26 years, widow of Late Nehru Ram Chauhan, S.yeo^f. 6 fio}ij^ Raj'nandini, aged abouy2T72-years, daughter of Late Nehru Ram Chauhan, Kushwaram, aged about 48 years, son of Late Tulsiram Chauhan All are resident of village Barpali, P.S. Sakti,District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Presently resided at Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Gaurishankar Maravi, aged about not known, son of Ramayan Singh Maravi, resident of village Dumarkachhar, (Paali), Disfrict Korba (Chhattisgarh) (Owner of offendina vehicle No. CG 12/6-6196) The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited T.P. Nagar, Korba, through - Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer of offendina vehic!e_No, CG 12/B-6196) -s^-ss _^ i t'"^ .^ ^ .0<a § ^<"A ^ ^ ^ ,^^ < ^v o ' ^^Raj'aa^^l^.-^^^.atee^^ (S&ughfe^r ot. 'Lat«»'.';H®I^uRam' • ch@uhanj,».; Mi.nor*. •tbrou.ghvhir natiiffal <?uae3iaun- moih«E'»Iialita ag®daboutt 26 y#-«rs»wldow of I.ati»- Na-hfu Ra% chauhan" •:y "r 19o HtGM ©GURTt)F CHHATTISGARH : BiLASPUR ^'\ ^' DJvision Bench Apoeiiants/ Cjaiamants Respondents ' Hont|ie Shri Satish K. A9n!hotri& Hon'leShFJN.K.AgarwaS.JJ. Misc. ADpea! (0 No. 11^5 of 2007 .: Lalita&Others Versus ; Gaurishankar Maravi & Others (Appeai under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicies Act, J988) Present:- Shrl Sudhir Kashyap, counsel for the appeiiants. NonefortherespondentNo.1. Shri H.B. ^ra\ft®t,Sr. Advocate withjMs Meera Jalswal, Advocatefortheresponclent.No.2..- • l •• .. .,:•;,, : .ORDER(ORAU ,,. r ... (Passed on this 5th day of November,2Q69) 1. Thte Is daimants' appeal againstthe award dated 26-10-2005 passed by ths Additlonai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (ft>r ^hort ssthe 7>?&i^af) 'inicialrn 'case No.21 Qf 2005' whereby ancS whereunder the appllcatjon iiled^by-the appeljants/claimante under Sectjon 163A ofthe Mptor Vehicle? Act, 19QQ {for shoft "the Act, 1988') has been dismissed. 2. The facts, in nutsheil, for adjudication of ttie appeaS, are that on 14-11 -2004 Nehru Ram Chouhan ^since dec^sed) was going on motorcycle bearing: /.^ registration -. No.CG--1j2nB-619^; ^towards^ Banbandha. and when he ..reached'near -yiiiage'Nakhanpur he met with an accident and syccumbed to the Injuries sustained In^^^^t^ .accldent. . ' . .'. .: . . . ":. :- :: : • " ' 3. The claimants are wife, minor daughter and father of the deceased, respectively ciaimed ,Rs.4374<500A- asj compens^ti.on on 'account of death ofthedeceasedinthe said accident. The respondentMo.l l.e. 1 't 3 i! 1 owner of the motoreycle remained ®xparfe. The respondent No.2 i.e. Insurance Company by fiiing writtesi statemsnt pleadecS that Jn the said accident the motorcycie was dashed by one truck; the deceased was not having ticence to drive the motorcycSe. The said accident occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of the driver of unknown truck and, therefore, the iearned Tribunaf has no jurisdiction to entertain the c!aim petition fiied against the motorcycle owner as weii as the insurance Company. The iearned Tribunal by recordlng a flnding that the said accident occurred due to r^sh and negligent driving of the driver of unknown truck, dismissed the ciaim petltion on the ground that the dajniants are oniy entitled to flie an apptication underSections 161/1 KS ofthe Act, 1988 in which they can obtain compensation on account of accldent which occurred by invoivement of unknown truck.. Shri Kashyap, learned counsei appearing for tite appetiants, would submit that the iearned TribunaE ©rredin recording a findlna that if an acddent occurred due to CQJiusion between motorcycle and/one unknown truck then in aii cases the dependants of the deceased are required to fiie the ciaim agalnst the unknovm vehide under Sections 161/163 of the Act, 1988 inasmuch as the clajmants are entltled to file dasm petition under Section 163A of the Act 1988 agafnst the ownerof the motorcycie invoived in the accident and thus, erred §n dlsmissing the appiication preferred by the claimants. Per contra, Shri Agrawai, jearned senior counse! appearing for the insurance Company, whlte supportlng the Impugned award wouid submit that the Tribunal has passed the award based on soursd reasons andthe same deserves to be upheSd. \^ v__- \ 'v 8. 9. 10. Gowri '3^2—- We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned award. Section 163A of the Act< 1988 provides for compensation on structurai formyla and on no fauit basis. The leamed Tribynal ignored this aspect of the matter and went wrong in hoiding that the ciaimants can only clalm. the. compensatton against the unknown vehlcie and ihey cannot prefer aGiaim petition against the ovi/ner of the sald motorcycie. The learned Tribunaloyght to have declded the application preferred bythecSaimants on itsjown meriis. In view of foregoing and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we set aside the impugned award and remit back the malter to the iearned Tribunai-with a direction to d©cidethe application fiied by the claimants under Section 163A of the Act, 1988, In accordance with Saw and on sts own merlts, as early as possibie preferably within a period of four rnonths froin the date pf receipt of a copy of this order. In the resuit,the appeai is aiiowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge "^- Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge / ^ ^ -