IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATnS6ARH AT BILASPUR M.A.fONo. ^| 4 /2010 ^nsS^ APPELLANT Claimants ^.-^^•^. y&ww'.^^"' • QaW1---"" Smt Rajeshwari W/o Lt.Ramesh Kumar Sahu, aged 37 years, (wife of the deceased) Ku. Madhu aged 5years b/o Lt.Ramesh Kumar Sahu (Daughter of the deceased) Vaibhav bas aged 1 & half years S/o Lt.Ramesh Kumar Sahu (Son of the deceased) Appellant no.2 <& 3 through her motherappellant no.l. Kushal Ram Sahu S/Prabhu bas r- Sahu, age 60 years (father of the deceosed) 5. Hiroundi Bai W/o Kushal Ram Sahu age 55 years (mother of the deceased) RESPONDENTSe Non-Claimants VERSUS 1. AII R/o Behind ^ovt.Hospital, Kharora, bist-Raipur (C.G.) Meghraj S/o Horilal Sinha, R/o Karora Tilda Main Road, PO & PS- Kharora, Dist: Raipur(CG) (Owner Minibus no.C6-07-ZA0472) The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through Zonal manager, Sai Nagar, Devendra Nkigar road,Raipur bist.Raipur(CG). (Insurer Minibus no.C6-07-ZA0472) AAISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 r^O HJAjCOURT_aLCHHAT33&^BHATja^^^ D2VISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. Z.M.QU&DUSI & HON'BLE AAR.6ULAM MINHAJUODIN. JJ AppellQnts Respondents M.A. rC1 No.916/2010 Smt. Rajeshwari & others Vs Meghraj & oltiers Presenti Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate for 1+ie cypeJlanTs. None for the nsspondent No.l "riiough serveci, Mr. Sudhir Agarwat, Advocate for the respondent No,2. ORDER (OraO (21st July. 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appellants-claimamts have flled this miscellaneous appeal a9dnst the award dated 14.07.2010 passed by th® leamed 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (FTC), Raipur(for( short 'the Ctaims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.61/10. 3. Facts of 1+ie cose, in brief, are that on 10.2.2009 at atoout 4.00 p.m. Ramesh Kumar Sahu was coming to village Kharora from Village Til<fai by mini bus bearing re9istration number CS07-ZA-0472. He was driving 1+ie said vehicle. When he recsched near New Market, (Oiarora, he lost control over the said vehicle as a r©sultthe vehicle overtumed and 1+ie deceased crushed under the vehicle and died. Report of the aGcident was lodged in the Police Station Kharora. The claimou'its fited claim application seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.5,82,000/- on tiie around that they were dependent on the deceased, who was sole eaming member in the family, and due to death of the deceased they have suffered loss of income. 4. Jhe Claims Tribunal vide impugned award dismissed the claim application of the claimants on the ground that 1+ie claimonts falied to prove their case and therefore they are not entitled to receive any arpount of compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that the dppellants shouid not have been denied legitimate compensation as under ^^, %^ Kaa, -•^^^, I 1 the AAotor Vehictes Acl. 1988 (for brevity 'the Act, 1988') there is a special provJsron i.e. Sectian 163-A, where there is no necessity to plead or establish the negligence or wrongful act or default and thus, the Clatms Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting the claim of the claimants* 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, We have also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal, 7. The question for our consideration is whether the legal representatives of the driver would be entitled to get compensation under Section 163-A of theAct,1988ornot? 8. Before adverting to 1+ie question raised before us, we may notice 1fie statutory provisions contajned in the Act, 1988. 9. Section 163-A (2) of Itie Act, 1988 envisages that "OT <»?y c/a/CT ^or compensation under sub-section (1), the chmant ^alf fwt be required to plead ar establish that the dealff or permanent disablement m respect of whidi the ctaim has been mcale was due to emy wyongfut act or fwglect or defauft of the awner of the yehicle or vehlcles wncemed ar of any oifier person^ l0.in the maner of Oeepal ©irishbhai Soni and others Vs. United India Insuronce Co. Ud.. Baroda reported in (2004) §SCC 389 the Hon'ble Supreme Court hcis held in Para-66 thus:- "66. We may notice that Section 167 of the Act provides that where dea1+i of, or bodiiy injury to, ainy person gives rise to claim of compensation under the Act ond ateo under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, he cannot claim compensation under both 1+ie Acts. The Motor Vehicles Act contains different e^pressions as, for example, "under the provision of -Hie Act", "provisions of this Act", "under any other provisions of this Act" or "flmy other law or oifterwise". Jn Section 163-A, the expression "notwitiistGBiding cnything eontained in this Act or in any other Saw for Ifie time being in force" has been used, which goes to dhow 1tiot Parliament intended to insert a non obstante ciause of wide natyre which wouid mean -t+iat the provisions of Section 163-A would apply despite the contrary provisions existing in the said Act or any otiier iaw for the time being in force. Section 163-A of -tiie Aet covers oases whers even negligence is on the part of the victim. It is by way of on exception to Section 166 and the concept of sociai justice has been duly taken care of." ^ ^rx^^- '"^ '%. 1 '^gSSi ls ^ ^^"^. . -<ta ,.. \ -»-^ ^ ^ 11. A bare readin^ of above provision would mdke it clear that Section 163-A would opply despite contrary provisions existing in the said Act or any other law for the time being in force, Fur-t+ier, Section 163-A covers th©cases where even negligence is on the part of the victim <xnd thereby the concept of social justice has been duly taken care of. In ol+ier words, even if there was negligence on the part of the driver, which comes within the category of "any olher person", the cfaimants seeking compensation for his dea1+i cannot be denied their legitimate daim on the ground that the victim himself was the responsible for the accident. 12.In view of the above/ we are of the opinion 1+iat contention raised by tiie learned counsel for the appellonts has substance and the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside. IS.Accordingly/ the appeal is allowed, impu9ned award is set aside and 1+ie matter is remitt-ed back to the Claims Tribunal for takina decision afresh in light of the observations made in this order. Needles^ to mention that the CJaims Tribunal shall provide opportunity to 1+ie parties to adduce further evjdence, if any, and amend the pleadings or to file documents or verify the documents already ftled. The parties are directed to o^)ear before the Claims Tribunal concemed on l7t^ Aufflust< 2011. 14.The Registry is directed to transmit record of the Claims Tribunal concerned without further dtelay. No order as to costs. 19. Certified copy as per rules. Roshan/- Sd/- I-M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge