c< .^ J^ 1MR3E HIGH COUST OF JUDICATURE OF OIHATnSGARH ^ ^T.BiyisejK •^ 01^, M.A>(C.) NoS.?^4<'?../^e6^- il Bar'cfe APPELLANTS ^ -^ h-P- ^ L^- .-^'it^" ^\^''/ ^s^- ,^% ^^yV ..^"t- r' -3 /. ^' ^ / /^ -^ 1} Usha Devi W/o Late B.N. Singh Aged about : 40 years, ^ Ku. Sarita Singh D/o Late B.N. Singh, Aged about 20 jears 3^ Ku. Sangita Singh D/o Late B. N. Singh, Aged about 18 years, 4^ Ku. Sushma Sin^i D/o ^" B.N. Singh, aged about 15 jears, /' 5][ Ku. Namita Singh D/o Late B.N. Singh, aged about 13 years, 6) Vishal Singh S/o Late B.N. Singh aged about 10 years, K^- Appellants No.4 to 6 are miaor and tfaeir legal heirs ^' ^F' Appellant No. 1 Usha Devi) ONX l^ ».s&w,.,^^^^s^.w,^.^ All are resident pf Chandmya Para Janj^r, District Janjgir- Champa(C.G.]! ^ERSUS RESPONDENTS : / I) State of Chhattisgarh Through District President Sarguja Distriet Sargyja (C.G.) S) The Superintendent of Police, Sarguja, District SargLija (C.G.) MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLEACn988. .y- -^ HIGItCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB : HON»BLEI.M.QUDDUSIfiB HON*BLE G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ. M,A.(C).Np.383y2Q10 Appellant Respondents Usha Devi and otiiers Vs State of Chhattisgarh aad aaofher Present: Vivek Rafhore, counsel for ftie appeUaxit. ORDBR (Orall (12th September, 201^) I.M. Quddusi, J 1. This appeal has been filed by fhe clahnants agamst fhe nnpiigned award dated 31.03.2009 passed by the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaajgir Champa (C.G) ui Clami Case No.08/2009 disinissiag the clami offhe appeUaats. 2. Brief facts of fhe case as per the version of clainiaa.ts are tliat deceased B,N. Sin.gh was aii employee of Chhatdsgarh Police Departaient He was workiag as aa ia-charge of PoUce Outpost Bariyo, Dhaurpur, Distdct Sarguja, Durmg fhe course ofhis duty on 08,10.2006, he has gone on patroUiiig by ridiag fhe niotorcycle beariag Regn.No. C,G. 03/1905, owned by the PoUce Department At that time, aa unknown vehicle which was bemg driven ia a rash aad negUgent maaner dashed tiie motorcycle ofB,N. Siagh, as a result ofwhich, he sustamed uyuries and died, The deceased was aged about 51 years. He was drawiag the monfhly salary of Rs, 10.948/-per anuum. The claunaats bemg dependents/legal representatives offhe deceased have filed claim petition u/s 163-A oftlie Motor Vehicles Act for fhe award oftotal compensation ofRs.9,63,468/- onvadous heads, '"~"'~1; 3. We have heard learaed counsel for fhe parties aad have also gone fhrough fhe records of fhe Tribunal. 4. Adinittedly ia fhe claim petition itself fhe claiaiarits have mentioned fhe iacome offhe deceased as Rs,10,948/- per month which amounts to Rs.1,31,376/- per annum. Siace the aniiual income offhe deceased was Rs,l,31,376/- that is more fhaa the outer llmit ofRs.40,000/- fixed iti ftie Second Schediile appended to fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 fhe clami petition filed u/s 163- A of fhie Act was not iiiaintamable. S. In Deepat Qirishbed Soni -vs~ United India Insurance Company Ltd., Barod (2004) 5 SCC 385, a three Judge Bench of Hon'ble fhe Suprenie Court whUe reviewiag the decision oftwo Judge Bench m case of Oriental Insurance Co. LtA. Vs. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala Ss others (2001) 5 SCC 175 held as under: rt67. We, titierefore, are of tiie opmion fhat Kodala has correctiy been decided, However, we do not agree with fhe findin.gs ia Kodala fhat if a persou invokes provisions of section 163-A, tlie annual income of Rs.40,000/- per aanum shaU be treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceeding u/s 163-A beiag social security provision, providiag for a distinct scheaie, only fhose whose annual incoxne is upto Rs.40,000/- caa take the benefit fhereof. AU other claims are required to be determiaed m. terms of Chapter XII ofthe Act." 6. In the instant case, the annual m.coiae of fhe deceased exceeds the outer 1imit of Rs.40,000/- fixed in the Second Schedule and ia view of fhe decision of fhe Supreme Coml m case of Deepal Girishbai Soni (supra), fhe clabix petition u/s 163-A was not mamtainable. Since fhis Court has held that the claim petition was not mamtainable, optton has been given to fhe claimaats to file a mLairitahiable clami petition, 7. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal with Uberty to fhe clainiaats to approach fhe appropriate forum includmg fhe remedy of moviag aa application u/s 161 of the MVA on tiie ground of hit and n-m niotor accident. 8. In fhe result fhe appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao