%-§§GE"§ G§URT OF CHHEFTSSGARH AT B§L£$PUQ BIV§S§QN BENCH HQN’BLE 3HR§ RAJEEV gama {:J ww’ELE s’ERa éuNsL KUMAR émHA, J. msa £App€ai Ma, 82‘} o? 2W3 Rmaaiants Ciaimamzg Rewonéems Nenwapplicame 3 J Smt. Amun Bai Sahu Wdio Naresh Kumar Sahu, aged absut 28 years. Km. Heera Sahu Dio iate NareSh Kumar $ahu, aged about 12 years. Ku. Sharda Sahu, D10 !ate Naresh Kumar Sam, aged about 10 years. 4-. Lapki Sahu, Sz’o late Naregh Kumar Sahu, aged about 7 years. 5. Vipki Sahu, S/o iaie Naresh Kumar Sahu, aged abeui 2 years. (Applicants No. 2 to 5 are miner, guafdian Mather Smi. Amimbai Wdio iate Naresh Kumar Sahu, AH residents af Vmage Khairjhi’m. PO. Gimd, F’s. Magarioci, Diett. Dhamtari) EIER$U$ 1. Tiharuruam Sahu aged abou’! 55 years S/G Jairam Sahu (Trader No. MP. 25 (SA/7150, Tro%1ey Ne. MP 23 GA 7151—CG—4, ZG 5291—§2— Permanent tegistration. We viit. Khatrjhitti, RO. Girod. Distt. Dhamtari) 2. The Divisionat Manager United tndia tnsurance Company Ltd‘, Krishna Cemptex, Firet Ftoor, Kachehari' Chowk, Raipur, Covet Note No. 395423, Period 22.11.2(361 to 21.11.2GG2 for Tracter Ne. MP. 23 QAIKISG. Treiiey No. MP. 23 BA/7151 CG 04 ZG 5291-921 SiiRiitM: my; §appeai undgy Seciion W3 of Memr Vehicieg Act §9re$em : Ms. Sharmila Singhai and Shri Sanjay Agrawai, counsel for the appeilanis. Mane far respandent No.1 though $erved. ‘ 8hri Dashraih Gupta, counsel for re$p0ndent N92. QRDER {29m Qswber, Em} The §oi§0wing orcier of the Cauri was passed by r Rajwu (Bugatag QJ, Thi$ is ciaimanig’ appeal fer enhancement ef the compensatien awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai, Dhamtari {for short ‘ihe Tribunai’) vide award dated 05.04.20Q3, passed in Claim Case Ne. 65/20Ci2. 2) As against the cempeneaiion cf Rs.14,85,000/- claimed by the appeilante/ciaimants, unfortunate widow and minor chiidren of deceased Naresh Kumar Sahu, by tiling a claim petition under . Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicies Act, for his death in the motor accident on 2109.2‘302, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Re,ti72,DDU/- ae compeneation along with inteteet @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the ciaim petition tiil the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Daehrath Gupta, learned counsel tor respondent No.2, the insurer of the Ti'actor Ttoiley which was being driven by s deceased Nareeh Kumar Sahu at the time of the accident, piecing reiiance en the dictum ofthe Apex Court in the case of Ningamma and'Anether Vs. United india insurance Company Limited. \,, \ reported in 2G§9A§$ 2%23 : MR 298$ SC 303§$$ submitted that in fact, i‘ne claim petition fiied by the appeHants/ ciaimants under Section 168—A of the Motsr Vehicieg Act befom ihe Tribunal was not maintainabie and as such; the claimants were not entitled to get any'compensa‘iion. 4) lt is not in dispute that deceased NareSh Kumar Sahu at the time 9f the aosident was driving the Tractor Tmliey. Father 0f deceased Naresh Kumar Sa‘nu i‘e. respondant Noii Tiharuram Sanu is the owner 0f the said Tractor Trolley. ln the accident! admittetily n0 ether vehicle was invoivedi Deceased Naresh Kumar Sahu Sustained injuries when the Tractor Trolley which he hirneelf was driving overturned. As such, it is apgarent that deceased Naresh Kumar Sahu himself was responsible fer the accident. 5) The Apex Courtin the case of Ningamma am Anether Vs, Limited ineiia insurance Company Limited; (Supra) while considering the maintainability ef the claim petition under Sectien 183-A ef the Motor Vehicles Act in the similar factual scenario in the said case observed in para 19: “‘19. We have already extracted Section 163—Aof the MVA hereinbefore. A bare perusal of the said provision would make it explicitly clear that persons like the deceased in the present case would step into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle. lri a case wherein the victim died or where he was permanentiy disahied due to an accident arising out of the aforesaid motor vehicle in that ’ ’\ ‘ event the liability to make payment of the compensation wag is‘en the insurance comgany 0r the owner, as me case may be as previded undar Section 163—A. But if it is farm/w ‘thai: the driver §s the owner of the maier vehicie, in mat case the owner gouid not himseif bg a fecipient 0f oemQamatmn as the liabiiity to pay the seme és on him This proposition is absoluteiy oiear on a reading of Seciioh 16341 of the MVA. Accordingly, the iegai representatives of the deceased who have siepped inio the shoes of ihe owner of .he motor vehicie oouici not have eiaimed oompeneaiion under Section 1634K of the ii/VA." 6} Now reverting to the preeent oaee) as deceased Nareeh Kumet Sehu himeeif was driving the Tractor Troiiey at the time of the aooident as son ot the owner of the Tractot Troiiey and no other tlehteie was invoived in the eooident; the oiaim petition tiled by the poeiianti cieiment under Section 183A of the Motor Vehicles Act, in View of the above quoted dietum of the Apex Court in the ceee or’ hitrtgemrne eed Qeother ttei tinited tnrtte insurenee Qompeny Limitee’, (Supra), was not maintainebte at eii against the ineurer of the Tractor Troiieyr 7) in this view of the matter, we do not hnd any ecope for enhancement of the compensation awerdedhy the Tribunai ’e’) The appeei tiied by the appeiiantss’otaimente therefore, is itabie to he enhancement of the compensation, dismissed end is hereby dismissed. Q3 No order ee to ooets. r Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha Sd/- Chief Justice e