;&;^ ^'^•^ ^6! -* ;&» [.a^jy •:.' ^ HOWBLEJ11THEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR S i. I APPELLANTS M.A.(C)No.-7f^^-^. SMsfsi ^i. 4. HULARAM VERMA S/0 DINDAYAL AGE ABOUT SOyrs. 2. MEENA BAI W/0 HULARAM VERMA AGE ^' ABOUT 45 YRS. ..3. KU. HEMLATA D/0 HULARAM VERMA AGE '' ABOUT 14 YRS. 4. KU. KARUNA D/0 HULARAM VERMA AGE <>^ABOCT 10 YRS THE MINOR OF APPELLANT N0.- 3 & 4 THROUGH GUARD1AN OF FATHER HULARAM VERMA S/0 DINDAYAL VERMA, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE POST OFFICE DEVARI, THANA BHATAPARA, GRAMIN, TAH. BHATAPARA, DISTT.- RAIPUR C.G. Vrs. RESPONDENTS ( N^ -^;1. RAMESH KUMAR CHANDRAKAR S/0 SHRIRAM PRASAD CHANDRAKAR AGE ABOUT 50 YRS., RESIDENT OF NAVAGANJ WARD BHATAPARA, DISTT.- RAIPUR C.G. x ;'; ts;-r'1 W (OWNER OF TRACTOR TROLLEY N0.- C.G. 04 ZQ- 0461 AND 462) .2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY f^ LTD. , DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KUTCHARI CHOWK MADEENA MANZIL, RAIPUR , TAH. & DISTT. RAIPUR (INSURER OF ACCIDENTAL TRACTOR & TROLLEY N0.- C.G. 04 ZQ-0461 AND 462) APPEALUNDEB_SECTION 173 OF MOTORVEHICLE ACT HIGHCOURT OF CHHAmSGARHAT BILASPUR M.A. (C)No. 198/2007 APPELIANTS Hularam Verma and others t Versus RESPONDENTS Ramesh Kum.ar Chandrakar and another DB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL SB HON'BLE SHRI R.L. JHANWAR. JJ PRESENT:- Shri Avinash Mishra, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri Deepak Jain, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2. ORAL ORDER (15-4-2011) 1. This is claimants' appeal against the award dated 7-12- 2006 passed by Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara whereby and whereunder, the claim petition has been dismissed holding it as not raaintainable. Facts of the case in brief are as under:- 2. On 25-2-2006 at about 4.00 p.m. when driver Balrara was driving the tractor bearing registration No. CG 04 ZQ 1461 and trolley bearing registration No. CG 04 ZQ 0462 and was returning after unloading paddy in a mill, front tyre of the tractor got burst, as a result of which, driver of the traetor Balrana was crushed between steering and tractor resulting in his death on spot due to the injuries sustained. Legal representatives of deceased Balram Verma 6.1ed a clairn petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the death of the deceased. 3. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, material placed and submissions made, held the deceased z,& S g^ ^aea^ s ^^ ^^•'_ ^SSi^^ himself was negligent and therefore, claim petition under Section 163(A) ofthe Act is not maintainable. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the award impugned. Law on the above point is already settled by the Supreme Court in case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni -v- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2004(5) SCC 385, in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 42 and 66 as under:- "42. Section 163-A was, thus, enacted for grant of immediate relief to a section of the people whose annual income is not more than Rs. 40,000/- having regard to the fact that in terms of Section 163-A of the Act read with the Second Schedule appended thereto; compensation is to be paid on a structured formula not only having regard to the age of the victim and his income but also the other factors relevant therefor. An awai'd made thereunder, therefore, shall be in full and final settlement of the claim as would appear from the different columns contained in the Second Schedule appended to the Act. The same is not interim in nature. The note appended to column 1 which deals with fatal accidents raakes the position furthermore clear stating that from the total amount of compensation one-third thereof is to be reduced in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself had he been alive. This together with the other heads of compensation as contained in column Nos. 2 to 6 thereof leaves np manner of doubt that the Parliament intended to lay a comprehensive scheme for the purpose of grant of adequate compensation to a section of victims who would require the amount of compensation without fighting any protracted litigation for proving that the r;.' v r -^ ->s s s gss // , . 1 ..^iShs, 1 ^i 'gB.sgfts22'! S :i '^S^-'"' 'S ^ ^- - .- . .^ ^ 7. accident occurred owing to negligence on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle or any other fault arising out ofuse of a motor vehicle. 66. We may notice that Section 167 of the Act provides that where death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to claim of compensation under the Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, he cannot claun compensation under both the Acts. The Motor Vehicles Act contains different expressions as, for example, "under the provision of the Act", "provisions of this Act", "under any other provisions of this Act" or "any other law or otherwise". In Section 163-A, the expression "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force" has been used, which goes to show that the Parliament intended to insert a non-obstante clause of wide nature which would mean that the provisions of Section 163-A would apply despite the contraiy provisions existing in the said Act or any other. law for the tirae being in force. Section 163-A of the Act covers cases where even negligence is on the part of the victim. It is by way of an exception to Section 166 and the concept of social justice has been duly taken care of." In view of above legal position, it is clear that claim petition under Section 163 is maintainable even if the deceased was negligent. In view of above, in our opinion, disruissal on above ground is not sustainable in law. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The award impugned dated 7-12-2006 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for disposal afresh in the light of the observation made hereinabove. ''^.•S'33S?E<BSMi-S* s 't s 8. The parties are permitted to adduce adclitional evidences, if so advised. 9. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. 10. The Regisfa'y is dlrected to send back the record, requisitioned from the Tribunal, forthwith. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge Sd/- R.L.Jhanwar Judge