IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASFUR (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUSAPPEAL.NO (j1"51 OF 2005 MISCELLANEOUS APPEALUNDER SECTION 173. MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988. Respondents: 1)^ Non-applicants Director,Vishal < Smt.Ramhin Bai aged 32 years W/o ShriBaldau Prasad Yadav R/o Nawangaon Kherwarpara, Ratanpur, Thana Ratanpur, Tahsil Kota,Districf Bilaspur (C.G.) Sharda Prasad Yadav, aged 17 years, Shailendra Kuinar Yadav, aged 15 years Ku.Narmada Yadav, aged, 13 years, Ku.SaraswatiYaday, agec} 10 years, Sahetrin Bai ,aged 70 yeEirs W/o Late Shri Dashrath Yadav, 1 Nos. 2 to 5 S/Q Late Shri Baldau Prasad Yadav, MiiiorsWali Mother Smt.Ramhih Bai, AI1 R/o Nawangaon Kherwarpar Ratanpur, Thana Ratanpur, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G-) .. Versus Subhash Verma S/o Gyanchand Verma, aged 55 years, R/ o Gondpara (Rainchand Bada), BUaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.). Ashok Rishi S/o MuUa-aj Rishi, MotorsCompany, Tifra, Near Railway Phatak, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.). Clain^jp-appeal for coirtpensation, valued at Rs.14716,000/- ; FixedCourtFeeaffixedatRs.15/-. . Berng aggrieved by award, dated 31.12.2004, >•?"'. •- - >W":' ]^ in claim case No.6/04, passed by-9til Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (E,T.C.), Bitaspur, the clairilants prefer j this Miscellaneous Appeal on the followingi facts and grounds: i ContA.2' :(13 ]3'"I'-;[ "I; -^^ HiaHGOURTOFGHHAmSGARH.BILASPUR DB: HOnr>BLBt.M.QlrDDCTW& HON'BUB PRASHAMTKUMaRMISHRA, JJ, M. A. Mp.199 pf 2005 Vs. MI8C. APBEAL U/S 173 OF THB.Mt»TORyBIUCLESACT'^ t988 APPEARAWCB: Mr. Sanjay S. Agiawal, cozinsel for tfae appcBant/). Mr. Asliish Shrivastava, counsel for the resppndeut no.2. ORDEaR;(ORAfc( (a'koa.aoii) PerI.M.OUODOBI.J. 1. This appeal has been fited by the claimauts ^atest the impugned award dated 31,12.2004 passcd by the K Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tritounal (FTC) Bilaspur (C.G), m Claun Case No. 6/2004 dismissing thc claim of the appeUauts. 2. Brief facts of fhe case as per fhe veision of claiinants are fhatdeceased BaMau Rrasad Yadav was aTractor Diiver and was worldng wifh noa-applicant no. 1 on a nionthty w^es of Rs.20007-. In tfae mtervenmg night of 2/3-7.2003 wheu he was ploughing thc field of non-applicaat no.l at lus -; insta-uctions ncar Rataupur Khunt^hat by Trac'tor, ttie Tractor has turacd turde aad he dled. Earlier, tfac Tiactor has mcchanical defect and scveral times, it was brought to fhe noticeof fhe owneri.e., non-applicaut no.l, but hedid not get it repaired. Atthe tuneofaecident, the dcceased was 3K!£:2— APPBLIANT8 Smt. Ramluin Bai and ofhers RESPOMDBITTS Subhash Venaa and others ;»»£""°a*<». 4. 5. Section 163 is a beneficial legislation and provides for payment of conipensatiou based on structured formula without requiring pleadiag or establteliiag that fhe death or pennanent disability in raspect ofwhich the claim has been inade was due to any wrongfdl act or negUgence or default of the owaer of fhe vehicle or vehicles concemed or aay other person. Such a beneficial legMlation has to be given a Uberal iaterpretation. Therefore, we answer this question in fhe affinnative by holdmg that a claimaat caa uiove the court for amendment of his claiin petition ffled iinder Section 166 to that of a petition iinder Section 163-A, at aay stage of fhe proceedings aad it would be for the concemed Court to.pass an order on. fhat application iu accordaace wifh law.' Thus the FuB Beuch cam.e to conclusioa that fhe claimaats during fhe pendency of fhe proceedlngs at the or^inal or appeUate stage can am.end his claim pettdoa u/s 166 to petition u/s 163-A provMed he satisfies fhe other couditions such as the iaconie factoretc. With regard to the incoiae, the Tribimal has sSso found the iucojne of the deceased as Rs.2400/- per nionth aad Rs.28,800/- per anniim, which is less tfaan the outer limit of Rs.40,000/- as per the schedule prescribed under section 163-AoftheAct We are ofthe opinion fhat poor persons litee the claimauts should not be sufferers due to lack of legal knowledge and legal advice and they should notbe deprived oftheir gcnuine claiin. Therefore, fhe matter requires reconsideiation at the end offhe Tribimal. »S,.B.—'l ^ ^ed about 40 years. The elaiinants being tegal representatives of fhe deceased have naade a claiiu to the tune ofRs.l4,60,000/-onvarious heads forthe deathoffhe deceased. 3. Learacd counsel for the appeBaate has subinitted fhat he does not want to aiyie on inerits as the deceased who inet with. aa accident was hunselfdrroiag the Tractor and as such due to lack of legal advice iastead of mentioniug^ the claim petition u/s 163-A of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, it was wrongty nientioned as u/s 166 and The Tnbunal has decidcd the claun petition treating the same as u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Aefc An applicatioa has also been naoved ia this regard to treat fhe claun appUcation uader scction 163-A. He has p]aced reUance on adecision offhe FuU. Bench offhe Kamataka H%h Court ia GarfMtnna Vu^ <i»tdtuioUier-«»- The General Mwwger, Kar»uitafcuState JtoaS. Bransport Corporettton and cuiotfter reported ia AIR 2001 Kamataka 275. 37. The only bar provided for exeroising an option ia the matter of filing a claua pctition for cojnpensation is to bc foiiad in S.163-B which states, 'where a person is entifled to Claiin • coinpensation under Section 140 and Scction 163-A, he shall file tih.e claim under either of the said sections aad not under bofh'. There is no -» prohibition in any ofh.er provteioa of fhe Act frorn switehing over the clauu made under Sections 166 to 163-A prowided the accident took place on 14.10.1994 or fhiereafter because S.163-Acamc on fhe statute book only with eflfect fix>ni 14.10.1994, subject of course, to fbe clauaa&ts satisfyiug other requireiaents such as the outer iacoine limit inentioned iu the Second Schcdule. l,,,iii""E!<>» f|Ji.:.,g3Sgte, Ss 6. In vjew of the facte and circuinstaaces of the case, we allow thfa appeal in part, set aside fh.e irupugned award dated 31.12.2004 and remit the laatter back to fhe Tribunal wifh a direction that fhe claimaate shaU be atlowed to amead their petitiou u/s 163-A of the Motor Velucles Act. Further the parties shatl be allowed to am.end the pleadings, adduce furfher evidence, if any, ffle the documents or get fhe docunients ven&ed eto., aad thereaflier fhe Tribujial shaU decide fh:e claiin petition afi?esh at fhe eariiest iu ligbt of fhe observations made herein above. The records of fhe Tribuaal shatl be sent back without further delay. No order as to costs. Sd/- .M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Rao