^ IN THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURfC.G.^ M.A.(C)No...:/../.. OFIOO^ w^" (APPEAL VALUED AT Rs6.74.000 /-} -Y^ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEfflCLES ACT. 1988. APPELLANT (NON- APPLICANT /tsro.i) ^y^ .^'" ^ ^" RESPONDENTS fAPPLICANTNO.l^ (XpPLICANTNO.2) National Insurance Company Limited, Through:Its Divisional Manager, Dlvisional-office, Mobin Mahal, In front of Sahkari Bank, Lalganga Complex, G.E. Road, Raipur, Tah. & Distt.-Raipur (CG) VERSUS .1^ ^Smt Manju Dutta W/0 Late Satyabrat ^ ^ Dutta, aged -49 years. :2. ^yDoUy Dutta D/O'- Late Satyabrat Dutta, Aged-22 years, Bofh are R/0- Diodayal Upadhyay Nagar, Dangamya, P.S.-Azad Chowk, Raipur, Tah.& Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) (NON-APPLICANTNo2) :3. Amit Dutta., R/0- Qr. No.16 A, Street No.S.P.A., Seetor-5, Bhilai, Distt.-Durg(C.G.). (Owner of Maruti Car No.CG-07/ZG- .5571) v^t« ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILA8PUR M.A.(C) N0.79 GF 2007 APPELLANT/ NON-APPUCJ^IT N0.1 RESPONDBNTS Natioual lusui'aiice Couxpauy T^Tnited Versiis Siiit. Maiiju Dutta aild others. APPBAL UNDBR SBCTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VBHICLB8 ACT.1988 Divisioa Bettcli: Hon'ble Shri I.M. Quddusi fis Hoa*ble Shri G. Minhajuddia, JJ. Pareseat: Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for tlie appeUant Shri 8. Paadya, couascl for thc Rcspondcnts No,l&2. ORALORDBR (Passed on 17th day ofJune, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J. Heaid. 2. This appeal Iias been filed 9gauist tlie iflipugued awai'd dated 26-07-2006 passed by Fii-st Additional Motor Accident Claiins Tribiuial, Raipzu (for short 'tlie Tribunal) 111 Clami Case No. 12/2006 by fhe Iiisui-aiice Compaiiy inter-alia awaidiag Rs.6,74,000/- as comperisatiorA, 3. Brief facts of the case ai^ ftiat on 05-07-2004 at about 6-30 A.M., deceased Satyabrat Dutta was goiiig fbom Raipur to Kaiiker aloug witbi his wife by driviiig Maruti Cai' beariiig Registi-ation No. C.G. 07 ZG/5571. Ou the way, aU ofa sudden the said cai' dashed fhe toree lyiag beslde tiie road, as a result of which Satyabrat Dutta sustained grievous injunes. He was adixdtted iti uuconscious statebfixxuid ia M.M.I.hospital, Raipur aiid thereafter^ he was referred to Jawaliarlal Nehru Hospital & Reseai'ch Centie, Sector-9, Bl-ulai where he died on 15-08-2004 duruig course oftteatiiient ^^'^^.\ 4. The clamiaiits beiag legal i^epresentative of the deceased had filed a petitlon under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short <the Act, 19883) before the Tribiuial claMmng total coinpensation of Rs.24,00,000/- uiider various heads, for the death oftheu bi-ead eamer. 5. The learned Tribunal on a close scrutlny ofevidence led, material placed aad submissious made by the parties, has awai'ded a suixi of Rs. 6,74,000/- along wifh interest @ 9°/Q per aniiuiii froin the date of applicatiou. 6. We have perused fhe record of the Tribuiial aad foiiud that iu tlie claiui petitk^n, nioiifhly iacome of the deceased was mcnUoiied as Rs.15,000/-, therefor^, tlie aanual iacoiae oftlie deceased comes to Rs. 1,80,000/-. 7 . The Clauns Tribuaal assessed fhe MicoDie bfthe deceased as Rs.12,698/- per laonfii Le.Rs. 1,52,376/- per annuin. After deducting pei'sonal aiid living expenses of fhe deceased, the annual iacome was assessed by the Tribunal as Rs, 1,20,000/-. 8 . In the Second Schedule of Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 tiie Schedule for coixipensatiou for fhjrd party fatal accidents/injuAy cases claiiiis has been given. The iastant case is uot a thiixl pai'ty accident case. Besides this, in fh.e table Rs.40,000/- is fhe uaaximujxi aiiiiual iacome shown. Therefore, if a pei'soAi uij-uured or deceased was havio.g aii Miicoiiie of morc fhaa Rs,40,000/- per aanum, fhe clalm petitioa filed by the iiijured or legal heu's/dependents ofthe deceased would not be Hialiitadjiable and fhe clakas aie required to be deteniiined ia ternis of Chapter XII of the Act. 9. A three judges bench of Hoii^ole Apex Court ia fhe case of Deeped Glrishbhai Soyrf aftd others ^s^ United Jftdia Insurwzce Co^ I.td^ B<irada? x'epoiled m (2004) 5 SCC 38S has held that the proceedings uiider Section 163-A beiug a social security provision, pi'ovidiiAg for a distiiict scheaie, only tliose whose aruiual iacoine is up to Rs,40,000/- can take the beuefit fliereof. All oflier claims ai'e required to be deteriaiaed ia terms of Chapter XII ofthe Act. J •'/ :T .1 I vt?: ''^:^'' .^: 10. In view of fhe above, fhe claini pefition was not ma.uitaiiiable at all uiider Secfiou 163-A. Hence fhe Tribunal has coiiiraitted isiaiiifest error of law in awaixliiig coiiipeiisation uiider fhat provisioii. Therefoi'e, we aUow this appeal aiid set aside fhe iDOLpugned award dated 26-07-2006. However, it will not debar tlie claLaiarAts to file fresh clalui petition under Chapter XII of the Act, 1988, as we liave held fhat fhe clau3ai petitlon under Section 163-A of flie Act, filed by fhe clalmaiits was not inauitaiiiable at aU. 11. It is niade clear fhat we have iiot considered the laaiiitauiability or oflier aspect of the niatter on merits, In case fhe claiiiiaaits avail tiie opportunity to file a fresh claiax petition under Chapter XII of fhe Act, followiag the decislou of HoAiJble Apex Couil m tiie case of Deefwl Gfrfcshlihcd Soni c»idathers (Supx'a), the Tribunal concerned shall consider aud decide the same wifhout beirig mflueuced by any of the observations nia.de heA'eia above. 12. No order asto costs. 13. The amount already deposlted by the appeUaat shall be refiinded to it. However, iu case tlie same has been withdrawii, it will be opeii for the appeUant to recovei the same froiaai flie clalaiante. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ^ Kvr