“g I\/ M? @ . W6' §§§ ?§§E §3§3i £§¥$j 3E 3i§§§i§§3§§E §? $§i§$?§§§§$.§3 E§335Ei§anauayiggEai§ia “696! gimé Q a Eb §€§5££§ianamg §§ v‘w 3&5 arségfgastiagg ‘€?3 Q? T§3e Eigigr gig-hick Act mgé F R??Eiii§§?5: ' “7 /§} K $5 Ea‘i b’a5;§, 3k§am iai {ihnm aggh‘ 2E gream Kg, bmi Efa- Shyasii tai Winn: Agad § yeam Mam—:1 {Zhgrgé Sfis. 3%wam IE mirua: A§§i§ 2 yeats‘, Risiiaiiaag.‘ m}. 2 i: 3 am Iggirgieritzé E? W§§i§mi Karaii 333, §§am $§E Wig Eavaii’ Ekmm #ged Em wsf aii mg gin §i§imxe- Eaaiari RI} Kuuu.P.S- aigimmmg mm: agggu: (6&3 ¥E&$!§S §§E§§€§EEE§=§S; Qri‘ Fsai£§mm Sslm Sim Ham 3a Sam: $é§~§é-§¥¥Efés’%¥§ gigs 1M! Err H}- !!pmwamJah, Et i¥§s§2 géipug {iii} Hm Qsiwki insuiante {.59. iii Tilmag§1 mvisina£ §¥kaa§gn Si‘visiw Ski ‘ i’ih&w&{a {:mgjigxi £E¥£m§m Riagag' Enact Qgiggr ii§£§ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ' Misc. Appeal No. 1 189 of 2004 APPELLANTS iglaimantgl Kunti Bai alxd others. Versus RESPQNDENTS ‘ Rajkumar 5mm anvd another Non-Applicants ' DB HQN’BLE SHRI N K. AGARWAL - HON’BLE SHE’RLJHANWARz JJ PRESEN’: :- Shxi S.C.Verma, counscl for the appeHants. Shri Sumsh’Tandon, counsel for respondsnt No. 1. Shn' Ajay Mishra, counsci for respondent No.2 b R A L o R DE R (15.94.2011) Per N.K.: Aggt‘wal, J. This ie ‘Claimants’ appeal against award dated 8.92004 passed by 13'11 Additiqnal Motor Aocidents Claims Tribunal (FT C) Raipur’ (for short ‘the Tn'bunal’) in claim case No 168 of 2004 whereby appellants clalm petmon illed under Secuon 163 A of the Motor Velncles Act (for short ‘fhe Act’) has been dlszmssed 2. Facts of the case in brief are as under:— On‘fateful day bf 01.10.2003 at about 7.15 pm. Shyamlal Dhruv was‘ going from Abharlpur to Banjari'on Hero Honda ' Motorcycle No. QG.‘ ~04 C.B. 8928, the same was dashed by Lmknown truck and Shyamlal succumbed “a; the injuries sustaiJled by him in the said acoident. 3. The crajmants bemg legal representatrves of the deoeased Sh3amlal filed a clalm peuuon under Sectlon 163 A of the Act agagnst the owner am: msurel of the sa1d motor cycle clalmmg ompensahon to the tune of Rs.11,80,000{—. The clalm petmon has Ebeen dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that it is a case ‘ c Q of hit and run and appéllants’ remedy liss by Way of Ejng m6 applicah'on undm‘ Section 161 read with Section 163 of fhe Act. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned and record of the Tribunai. Law on the above point is already settled by the Supreme Court in case of Deepai Girishbhai Soni -v- United India Insurar‘lce Co. Ltd. reported 1'11 2004(5) SCC 385, in which Hon’ble Supreme Com has held 1'11, 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 factthat in terms of Secu'on 163—A of the Act read with the Second Schedule appended thereto; compensation is to be paid on a structuredtfomiula not only having regard to the age of the victim and his income but also the other factors relevant therefor. An award 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 makes 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 no manner of doubt tha’e 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 O. é compexlsation without fighting may protracted litigation or proving that the accident'pccuxmd owing to negligénce on thopart of the driver of tho motor vehicle or any other faultarising out of use 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 Claim compensation under both the Acts. The Motor Vehicles Act contains diiferent 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'j. 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 clauseof wide nature which would mean that th provisions of Section 163-A wouidapply despite the . contrary provisions existing in the said Act or any other law for the time being in force. Section l63-A of the Act covers cases Where even negligence is on the part of the victim. lt is by way of an exception to Section 166 and, the concept of social justice has been duly taken care of.” 6. In view of above legal position, it is clear that claim petition under Section 163A of the Act is maintainable even iftthe deceased was negligent, a 7. In view of above, in our opinion, since the claimant has preferred claim petih'on against the insurer of the Motorcycle ‘ bearing No. CG. O4 CB 8038 and not against the unknown vehicle @ f e ‘1 involved in the accident and thcrefore there ls no need for hr: clamlant to apply before the appropmate aufhonty lmder Sechon 161 read w1th Secnon 16 of the Motor Veh1cles Act and the above ' hndmg of the Tmbunal ls not sustamabEe 1n law Therefore the appeal deserves to be and 1s hereby allowed The award Impuoned dated 8 9 2004 1s set aslde The matter 1s remltted back to tne Tnbunal for dlsposal aftesh 1n the hght of the observauon made heremabove 8. The pames are permitted to adduce addmohal ev1dences 1f so adv1sed and the Tnbunal 1s also dzrected to adord the partxes opportumty of healing and iihng of addmonal documents, if any. C). The appeal is allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. 10.‘ "The Registry 1s dlrected to send back the record xeqmsmoned from the Tnbunal forthwith ,4 t ‘ Sdl- Sdl— K' Agarwal R‘L‘ Jhanwar \N' Judge Judge