a? IN THEHIGH COURtOFCHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR M.A. (Cl N0. /2010 (D.B.I APPELLANTS ^CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS ^DEFENDANTS t^. Fareeda Bano Wd/o Iqbal Sekhani, aged about 40 years, Occupation - house wife. 2^ Mohammad Riyaz, S/.o Late Iqbal Sekhani, aged about 22 years. 3^Mohamthad Imtiyaz, S/o Late Iqbal Sekhani, aged bout 20 years. Mohamanad Faiyaz, S/o Late Iqbal Sekhani, aged about 18 years. 5. Farheen BanQ, D/o Late Iqbal SeKhani, aged about 15 ,. L'3~ "->El ft^t^rA^C£o<4 A-fl.f-£l^ All residents of Rajmahal Chowk Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) I^RSUS 1. Vishnu Yadav, S/o Madan Yadav, aged about 20 years, Occupation — Driver, R/o Village- Ashok Nagar, Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C G) (Driver) ^"T k^sl i^,!s;Rt ';-^--h< Kk3U Basi •^;i<T^^:'\^^. 'as&wtK. s a WIM Sa'ie'figfiEES] .r,f;>T.,r"-'- r/-..r,f",;;.(• .(•..'•.'' r'^.r^r I'-.r-.r •i " •.••:: • a- IN THE HIGH COtTRt OF CHHATT!SGAIUI ATBILASPUR M.A. (C) N0. APPELLANTS /CLAIMANTS '«' ®2 ^ A- y XESPONDENTS ^DEFENDANTS /2010 (D.B.f L: Fareeda Bano Wd/o Iqbal Sekhani, aged about 40 years, Occupation - house wife. 2^ Mohammad Riyaz,. S/o Late Iqbal Sekhani, aged about 22 years. Mohaminad Imtiyaz, S/o Late Iqbal Sekhani, aged bout 20 years. Mohamanad Faiyaz, S/o Late Iqbal Sekhani, aged about 18 years. 5. Farheen Bano, D/o Late IqbalSekhani, agedabout 15^,. C n^^ ^H^-t &^^y years b's" ^0%^ '^wts &^.^} All residents af Rajmahal Chowk Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) VERSUS •^ Vishnu Yadav, S/o Madafl Yadav, aged about 20 years, Occupation - Driver, R/o Village- Ashok Nagar, Kawardha, DiStt. Kabirdham (C.G.) (Drwer) "-i fftII w !:» 2. ^ Branch Manager, I.C.I.C.I. Lumbard General Insurance Company Limited Lal Ganga Shoping Maal, Ghadi Chowk, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) MISCBLLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. •iS'f-'"' jSSs. 1.1 1% <''s9'''~~'^y'^ 'v'\ fc^' ' \*?i ^ i^.. W '^ ^, ^:^} ^ ^1' VS'7f^tS ^"t^^TTSS^T1 <M^wt rst'E3^rAiT*"^T£t^^AT»'E3' * T^ '^ir-r A eaTfcfTT^ ^zA^jri^. ^<ijFU5^.JE. \^st ^ni^ui.iiiiStjrti.ixjra.j'n.' Misc. Appeai (Cl No. 473 of2010 Pai'eeila-Baiio aiiu ofjj.ers Vcj?5i,£S Visiuiu Yadav aiiu aiiouier a*'?i'r&i*^..-&?Ta?~a-a.'e-'>">tf«a 9 0?\ ^ APPEAL_.UNDERi>ECTi&N 173 OFTHE_wlQTQR_VEHlCLES ACT, 1988 D'B'. Hua bic Shrl Justice l.M.. Qadausi & Hos'ble Shri Justice G. Miahajiiddin- Present s Sliri Ajlt Siiigh, counsel for uie appeUants. Noiie lc>r x'esDGudeiit No. 1. thQusli seived Slii'i Sourabh Sharma, counsel for ResDoudent NQ. 2 ^^'fhSt'y ^^••r»T^^'»S~!i U*UU< fJKlfSSist (Passed on 25th day of July, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi, J. Tlils appeal has been flled by tlie appeilaiits agauist Uie im.pugi'ied awai'd dated 14-12-2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tr'iouual, Kabirdliam (Kawai'uhaj (for short tlie Claiiiis Tribunal^ in Clairn Case No. 9Q/2008, uisuiisslng' fhe claiiii petition. 2. Br'ief facts of fue case are fliat on 01-06-2008, ueceased — Iqbal Shekhaiii was goiag to Raipiit' on Max Plck-up ueaj'iiig reglsu'atlon No. C.G. 09-B/0418 by loaduig Pepsi aiiu Tuums-up bottles. The saiu veliicle was beuig cu'iven by respondent No.l. On the way^neai' vulage Katlua tiu'nuig, all of a sudden head light of the saiu velucle turned ofi' aiid was dashed bv another' .^~ 0^' uiiKiiown LTUCK aue 10 wnicn iqDai yiieKnani (ueceasecij susLairiea gnevous jinjuries aiia aiea on uie spOL. 3. The claluiants had Oled a clalm petition No. 90/2008 before flie Claims TribtUial under Section 16.3-A of tlie Motor Veliicles Act (for short fhe Acf), alleging uionfhly hicorne of the deceased as Rs. 10,000/- aiid Rs. 1,20,000/- per aiinuni, elaiuung a total compensation ofRs.40,85,000/- uiider'various heads. 4. The leamed TrioLUial on a close scr'utinv of the evidence led, material placed aiid subruissions rnade by the parties, uisnilssed the claini petltion after fl'auiiiig issues. 5. Hoii'ble Apex Court ui Deepa.1 QirishSshai Soni csnd others vs. United Ina.ifi Insurance Co. LtcL, Bcsrsida; reported m |2004) S SCC 38S, has hcld m pai'a 67 as under: "67. We, therefore, are of the opuiion tfaat » Kodala has correctly been decided. However, we do not agree wifh the fuiuings in Kodala Uiat if a person uivokes provisions of Section • 163-A, the aniiual uiconie of Rs. 40,000 per annitm shall be treated as a cap. In oui' opinion, uie proceeduig uiiuer Section 163-A beuig a soclat secLu'ity provisioii, providuig for a dlstuict scheiue, oruy tliose whose aruiual uicouie is up to Rs. 40,000 caii take tlic beuefit Liiereof. AU ofiier clauiis a-i'e requu'cu' / 'ff^'i^ to be deterrnuied in terms of Chapter XII of tlieAct." 6. In view of fhe above, the claim petition unuer Sectlon 163-A of tiie Act was not niaintainable aiid the claims Tribunal should have disrriissed the claim petition as not maiiitaiiiable at the veiy outset but fhe same has wrongly been entertaiticu and disniissed. 7. Accorditigly, we set aside fhe impugiied awai'd and held that fhe clairn petition filed under Sectlon 163-A of flie Act was not maiataii'iaole. Ther'efore, we ulrect tliat Uie Clalius Tribunal shali convert fhe clalai pctition under Section 166 of fhe Act aiid proceed fui'fher. 8. The appeal is aUowed ui pai't, remit the laatter back to fhe Claiins Tribuiial. It Is necessai'y to mention that we have not considered the nierits of fue case one way or otlier' and flie Tfibuiial has to decide the matter afl'esh. 9. Needless to mention that fhe parties shaU be providcu opportuiiity to amend u~ie pleaduigs, adduce further evidence, ffle docuiiients or get fhe dociiments verifLed etc. 10. The parties shall appear before the Clamis Tribunal ^^ /~\0 ^iF^ -! -i on ^it-us-^u i i. 11. The records of tlic Tribunal shau be sent back wltliout any further delay. i£. I'ucLuKier as.TO cosis. SA'- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ••—— - .-^^:^.^.