BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.V M.A. fCl N0. 2^J /2008 •c^^^l^ H^^ ISillCII^ Q^W APPELLANTS xr .< ^y ^y ^ ^' .'<8>y <-%- 'y ...<^ 1. Smt. Alomny Xalkho, W/o Late Ramlal, aged 32 years, 2. Rakesh Kumar Xalkho, S/o Ramlal, age 14 years, 3. Rajesh Kumar Xalkho, S/o Ramlal, age 12 years, 4. Rebert Kumar Khalkho, S/o Ramlal, age 9 years, Appellant no. 2 to 4 are minor through natural guardian mother Smt. Alomny Xalkho W/o Late Ramlat Xalkho, aged 32 years, All R/o Village Mahuwadih, Post. Ghughari Khurd, P.S. Shankargarh, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS^ d 1. Shyam Murari Yadav, S/o Late Rambriksha, R/o Vitlage Parewa, Post Manoharpur, P.S. Shankargarh, Tahsil Kusmi Distt. Surguja (C.G.) 2. Tuila Ram, S/o Medhoram Paikara, Occupation Driver, aged 40 years, R/o Viltage Bachwar, P.S. Shankargarh, Tahsil Samri Kusmi, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) ^3. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Sattigudi Chowk, Raigarh (C.G.) ^ rN-nNN<B> 4. Rupan Ram, S/o not in knowledge (Agyat), age 65 years, Caste- Panika, ^.5. Charkibai, W/o Rupan Ram, age 60 years, Respondent no. 4 and 5 R/o Village Mahuwadih, Post Ghughari, P.S. Shankargarh, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) ^' Amount claimed before the tribunal—7.75000/- Learned tribunal awarded only — 3.59.908/- ^ pec^N^^^ — ^-Q)/3&^/, APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 2001 .% HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.fC) No. 281 OF 2008 APPELLANTS Smt. Alomny Xalkho and others. Versus RESPONDENTS : Shyam Murari Yadav and others. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE M.V. ACT (Sinate Bench: Hon'ble Shri N.K. Aaarwal. J.^ Present Shri Sunil Tripathi, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Neeraj Pradhan, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Bhupendra Singh, counsel for respondents No.4&5. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 20th Day of September, 2010) This appeal has been filed against the award dated 24-10- 2007, passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Ambikapur, Surguja (for short 'the Tribunal), in Clalm Case No. 46/2006, awarding Rs.7,75,000/- as compensation agajnst the respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant No.1 is wife of the deceased RamlaJ, appellants No. 2 to 4 are minor children of the deceased and respondents No. 4 & 5 are parents of the deceased. On 14-02-2006, Ramlat (since deceased), was dashed by Tractor bearing registration No. CG 15-A/3950 by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle ('l ractor) as a result of which he succumbed to the injuries sustained by hjm in the said accident. 3. The appellants/claimants who are unfortunate widow, minor children and parents have preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming Rs; 7,75,000/- as compensation for the death of deceased in the said accident. 4. The Tribuna!, on a close scrutjnyof evidence led, material placed and submissions made, the respondent/lnsurance Company has failed to establjsh that the driver of the offending v-"^. •^;.^.^^; vehicle was responsible for the said accident and assessed the arnourrt of compensation as Rs.3,59,908/- jn favour of the appeliants No.2 to 4 and respondents No. 4 & 5 holding that the appettant No.1 is the second wife of the deceased not entitled to get any compensation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that atthough the appeilant No.1 has ateo received the amount on behalf of the appellants No. 2 to 4 and the appellants are not chailenging the quantum of amount of compensation and apportionment between the claimants. But the appellants' main challenge js the'finding about appellant No.1 that the appellant No.1 is the Second wjfe of the deceased not entjtled to get compensation, which is perverse and deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 4 & 5 would contend that the statement of respondent No.4 would show that the deceased got marriage with the appellant No.1 in the life time of his first wife, and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly helct appellant No.1 is not legally married wife. However. he could not dispute the fact that there js no evidence available on record showing appeltant No.1 as second wife of the deceased, meaning thereby in presence of existence of marriage between any woman with the deceased. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the award impugned, in the consldered opinion of this Court, the tearned Tnbunal has erred in holding the marriage of appellant No.1 with the deceased as void. There is a clear cut admission of the respondent No.4 about the Court rnarriage of appellant No.1 with the deceased. In case of Court mamage, the validity of the marriage shall be presumed unless rebutted by the other parties who challenged the same. In view of above, the above finding is not sustainable in law and deservers to be set aside. "^^ ^,.^^' "--^.^..^^•^" Kvr 8. However as the leamed Tribunal after apporttonjng equally the amount of compensation between six claimants directed disbursement of 1/6th share which ought to have been awarded in favour of appellant No.1, in favour of appellants No. 2 to 4 and respondents No. 4 & 5. In this way, the appellant No.1 had already received 3/4th of her share through her children. In the light df above, there js no need to interfere in the award passed bythe learned Tribunal. 9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. 10. No order asto costs. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge LNINNIK^^'