’1 TU PE . Shri ush Kur Tiwari LAIMANTS S / . Ramhal Tiwari, d b ye Age aout 52 ars, Smt Prabha Bi, W . Kaus Tiwari, Aged abot 47 years, Sanju Tiwari, S/ o. Kaushal Tiwari, Aged about 28 years Anupam Kumar Tiwari S/ o. Kaushal Tiwari, aged' about 22 years, All R/o. Sonarpara, Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS °I Deepak Kumar Patel S/o Ram NSURER L 2. National Insurance Cbmpany Ltd. n Branch Insurance Company Office Korba, 13 Minu Complex, Main Road Kosa Badi, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 172 “5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICARE AT BILASPUR (c.G.) man E m§ M.A. No 2004 APLLANTS 1 Kaal ma C o ta . a / o hal u I DRIVER \8 \kw Yxk‘w Govmd Patel Aged about 3 1 years R/ o. Kenalpara Nagar, Post Korba av‘ G‘F District Korba (C.G.) At present av“ :3;§...0 .u R/o. M—691 Chunchuni Colony KUsmunda, District Korba (C.G.) ’1/ 2 ll 3 /3. Leftinent Kernal Mohan Singh R/ o. Kusmunda Project, District Korba (C.G.) Claims before the Tribunal Court fee paid Rs. Awarded amount Samein the present appeal. v/L Rs. 73,52,8OOI- 15/- Rs. Nil ISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U[ S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT: 1988 a @ M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTlgGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No. 79/2004- Shri Kaushal Kaushal Kumar Tiwari and others Versus M’wLLANTs RIESPONDENTS Deepak Kumar Patel amd others “In" ELQN’BLE SHRI LM. QUDDUSI 85 litm,‘ "L'E SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, JJ / I'HEQENT I- Shri Santosh Bharat, Advocate far the appellants. Shri Anand Gupta, Advocate for tespondent No. 2. o RAL 0 R D E R (7—9-2010) ' Par LM. Quddusi, J 1. This appeal has been filed by the claimants against the impugned award dated 31—12—2003 passed by the IVth additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 83/2004. p ‘F‘acts of the case, in brief, are that on 3—8—2000, when deceased Sandeep Tiwari and his friends Ashok Singh and Anil Soni were returning from Bilaspur to Ratanpur on a Bajal Caliber motorcycle bearing registration No. IMP—26 KD/ 1263 after treatment of Anil Soni, at about 5.45 p.m. near Village Koni, a Dumper bearing registration No, MP— > 26—D/ 1362 being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle, as a result of which Ashok Singh and Anil Soni died on sport and Sandeep Tiwari died in hospital at about 9.00 p.m. Legal representatives of deceased Sandeep Tiwari filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming Rs. 73,52,800/— as compensation for the death of the deceased in the motor accident. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the submissions made, evidence led and material placed, dismissed the claim petition and also directed the insurance company to F 1 ”WWW we were, we a recover Rs. 50,000/— from the claimants awarded under no fault liability. We have heard learned cdunsel for the parties and perused the record. We have found that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are contradictory and perverse. In para 13 of ‘the . impugned award, learned Tribunal has mentioned that “ammamemgaummgeaemwmaw W W W s} I”, on the other hand, he has mentioned , in para 19 that the accident had taken place because of the negligence on the part of motorcyclist and not on the part'of the driver of the truck. Further, the Tribunal has not mentioned as to whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation under no fault liability. Chapter X of the Act provides for liability without fault. ection 140 of the Act further provides for liability to pay compensation in certain cases on the principle of no fault. Section 140(4) of the Act reads as under: “A claim for compensation under sub—section (l) shall not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement.” Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of Tribunal. Therefore, we allow this petition in part, .set aside the impugned award dated 31-12-2003 and remit the matte back to the Tribunal for fresh decision. The Claim petition shall be restored to its original number and it shall be decided in the light of the observations made above. The Tribunal shall afford opportunity to both the parties to adduce further evidence and argue their case. S r The Tribunal shall decide the matter as early expeditiously as possible. 10. The records of the Claims Tribunal shall be sent back forthwith. 11. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal along—With as copy of this order on 4-10-2010. No order as to costs. ‘3 . Sdl- l.M.Quddusi Sd/- N.K. AGARWAL Judge Judge {, /