S C ( AM9a IN TFE WWLE HIGH CQJRT OF CHKATTISGW' AT BILASPUR. / Misc. APpEAL No. ,Wg 9F 2004 Rajkumar Tandan san af Panchnaa caste— Satxmzai, aged 37 years, present address— Iadira Nagar, Ward Na, 27, Jai Stambh Chawk Dani Rajhara’, Distt. burg (c3933 Permanent address- village Kasai Post Bhimkanhar, Tahsil Daudi Luhara, DiEtrict mrg (C.’G¢)ff$i w APPLICAN f BE WEE : 8m. Sandhya Jam Mfe vf NON.- LICANTS Skri Anil Jain, vill age~ Daudi, Tah5il Baloda, Disti‘f.’ DArg (C.Go h‘ 2. Oriental imam-wee Cnwparxy e . “:uwmeé m» m ‘2‘“ ‘ '9 named Kanfauai Line, Rajnmd - we “ ‘ M“ gaon, ’Distrnt Rajnandgaon. C:_Gy )y APPEAL UNDER sacrxom ma OF mama yamcms my lgam HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal No. 4680f 2004 APPELLANT Appiicant Rajkumar Tandan Versus i : Smt. Sandhya Jain 8: Another RESPONDENT Non-applicants APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT DB: Hon’ble Shri Justice LM. Quddusi & Hon’bie Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal. \ Present : Shri HB Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawai, Advocate for the appeHant. None for respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 07.10.2010) Per : LM. Quddusi, J. Heard. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the award dated 10.02.2004, passed by the AdditiOnal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, Distt. Durg (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in claim case No. 59/02, dismissing the claim petition preferred by the appellant/ciaimant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 16.12.2001, while the appellant was driving the Truck bearing registration No. MIT- 9013 and was going to Chandrapur (M.H.) from Dalli Rajhara, near village Tobi-Tola, the said Truck turned turtle due to failure of steering, as a result of which his right leg was amputed. 3. The appellant preferred an application before the Tribunal under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming 2 @ compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,23,675l- for the said accidént. The respondent No. 1/owner of the vehicle admitted the factum of accident but denied to pay compensation on the ground that on the date of accident the said. vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2 and therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the appeiiant/ciaimant. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition preferred by the appellant as not maintainable on the ground that neither the appellant has proved the fact regarding faiture of steering nor produced any document/report. Further, FIR report itself shows that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver/appellant. 6. lt appears that, the Tribunal without recording proper evidence straightway came to the conclusion in a cryptic and casual manner that the claimant/appellant has failed to prove negligence/fact regarding failure of steering and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni —v- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2004(5) SCC 385, has held in para 66 as under :- “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 different expressions as, for example, "under the Sahu provision of the Act", "provisions of this Act", ”under any other provisions of thi5 Act“ or “any other iaw or otherwise", In Section 163-A, the expression "notwiihstanding 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 Pariiament intended to insert a non-obstante clause of wide nature which would mean that the provisions of Section 163- A would apply despite the contrary provisions existing in the said Act or any other law for the time being in force. Section 163—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.“ Since, no prove regarding negligence is required under Section 163-A of the Act, therefore, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunai concerned. Accordingly, the appeal is allowad in part. The order dated 10.02.2004 is set asideand the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal concerned, for decision afresh. 10. The Tribunal concerned shall provide an opportunity to both the parties to adduce further evidences, if any, and shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. No order asto costs. l Sdl- L~\ i I.M.Quddusi Judge i l l sal- J i r, N.K.AGARWAL — ‘ l Jildge/V g,