•••<%T' fitoBltBendi IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. ( C t No. lnX3 /2011 APPELLANT : ^ Chhotelal Moiya S/o Sukhram Morya aged about 50 years, R/o VUlage- Jhagrakhand, P.S. Jhagrakhand Tah Manendragcirh, Distt. Korea (C.G.). (Owner) A ^ >^^' ^L ^RESPONDENT ^Claimant VERSU S :/Budhdhu Rajwade S/o Dhannu Ram, Caste Rajwar, aged about 56 years, R/o VUlage Mansukh, P.S. SE Tah Baikunthpur Distt. Korea (C.G.). -»^" ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 1089 of 2011 APPELLANT Chhotelal Morya Versus Owner RESPONDENT Claimant Budhdhu Rajwade Miscellaneous apfieal under Section 173 ofthe Motor VehiclesAct, 1988 S.B: Hon'ble MrJustice N.K.Aaarwal Present : Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, counsel for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (04.11.2011) Heard on admission. 1. This is owner's appeal against the award dated 25.4.2011 passe^ by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, Distt. Korea (for shgrt 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.21/2011.. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- The respondent/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Mofor Vehicles Act (for short the "MV Act") claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.36,50,000/- against the appellant, who is owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.CG-16/4149 for the death of his wife—Manmat Bai in the motor acddent on 20.8.2010. Along with the claim petition, the claimant had also filed an application under Section 140 of the MV Act for award of no fault compensation of Rs.50,000/-. In support of above claim, the claimant has filed filed F.1.R., post-mortem report and other relevant papers.In the written statement filed by the appellant, factum of accident has been denied. ^" 3. The Tribunal, after considering the prima fac/e evidence available on record, awarded Rs.50,000/- as no fault compensation in favbur ofthe respondent. .<f . • 4. Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit: The Tribunal, by ignoring the defence taken in the written statement by the appellant to the effect that he-was not 9' -4 -<: present on the spot at the time of accident and theaccident had not occurred with his vehicle, passed the award which is not tenable in law and deserves to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellantand perused the material available on record including award impugned. 6. Rule 227 of the M.P./C.G. Motor Vehicle Rule, 1994 reads as under:- 227. Judgment and award of compensation under Section 140.(1) The claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim of compensation under Section 140 on the basis of- (a)Application and Statement of the parties; (b)Accident Information Report in Form 54 of the Central Rules or Certificate regarding ownership and insurance particulars of the vehicle involved in the accident, obtained from the Registering Authority; (c) First Information Report; (d)Post Mortem Report or Death Certificate or Ipjury Report in Form M.P.M.V.F. 76 (Comp. B) by the Medical Officerwho has examined the victim. (e)Any other information or documents obtained by the Tribunal under rule 226. (2) The Claims Tribunal in passing orders shall make an award of compensation in respectofthe death or permanent disablement to be paid by the insurer or owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, within a period of thirty days. (3) The Claims Tribunal shall as far as possible, dispose of the application for compensation within forty five days from the date of receipt of such application." 7. As per aboye Rule, the Tribunal is required to decide claimant's application for.award of no fault compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the basisof F.t.R., post mortem report and other relevant material and submissions made by the parties. 8. lt,is not in dispute that as per F.1.R. and post mortem report, the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of motor cycle bearingjegistration No. C.G. 16/4149 by its driver i.e. appellaint and Manmati.wife of the claimant died on account of injury sustained by her in the said accident. -.-< \' °7Q^- 9. Tribunal considering the above prima fac/e evidence has allowed the respondent's application for grant of no fault compensation of Rs.50,000/-under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act strictly following the procedure as prescribed under Rule 227 of the M.P./C.G. MotorVehicle Rule, 1994. 10. In view of above, l do not find any scppe for interference in the award impugned. Theappeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs; Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge 4 \