r.T?1 t.-*,^* BEFORE THEHON'BLE HlGH COURTOFCHHAmSGARH ofc' * AT BILASPURfC.G.) M.A.C. N0. ...t^.".S.../2008 ,Smt. Laleshwari Bai aged about 36 years w/o. Bhuneshwar Sahu, R/o. Village & Post Loharsi, Distt. Dhamtari ^s^^' ]V\ sS^" ' ' Appellant (Respondent No.4 before M.A.C.T.) Vs. ^ Anil Khandelwal, S/o. KamalNarayan Khandelwal, R/o. Behind Hanuman Mandir, Ramsagar Para, Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur .(Driver ofMotor Cycle No. C.G. 04 CF-9220) Ashok Todwa'l S/o. Chaturbhuj Todwal, R/o. RamsagarPara, Raipur (Behind Hahuman Mandir) Ttiana Azad Chowk, (Driver of Motor Cycle No. C.G. 04 CF-9220) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through : Divisional Manager, Circle No.l,'-The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer of Motor Cycle No. C.G. 04 CF-9220) ^ ^- 5.. Hemant Kumar S/o. Late Devlal Sahu, Aged about^22 year Ramesh KumarSahu, S/o. Late Devlal Sahu, Aged about_^8 year At presentfR/o. Ashwani Nahar, Raipur (C.G.) Permanent Address : Village& PostSamera, Tahsil Nagari, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Respondent (beforeM.A.C.T) Respondents (Claimants before M.A.C.T.) • ABpeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 Claimed valued at Rs. 5,95,000/- CIaim awarded NU \ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR NVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDbUSI & HON'BLE MR.6ULAM MINHAJUb&IN. JJ Appellant Resoondents M.A. [C] No.981/2008 Smt. Laleshwari Bai Vs Anil Khandelwal <& others Present: Mr. N.K. Vyas, Advocate for the appellant. <Ar. Sudhir Verma, Advocate for the respondent No.l. ORbER (Oral) (21st June. 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The non-applicant No.4-appellant herein has -filed this miscellaneous appeal against the award dated 05.05.2008 passed by the learned Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C6) (for brevity 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.14/07. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that 6n 18.6.2006 Bhuneshwar Sahu (since deceased) was returning along with non-applicant No.l from his native place Semra, Police Station Sihawa, District Dhamtari to Raipur on the motorcycle bearing registration number C604-CF-9220. Bhuneshwar was traveling in the said motorcycle as pillion rider. At about 11.30 a.m. when they reached near Chitrakoot Dhaba, Abhanpur, the tyre of motorcycle got burst as a result the driver lost control over it and both of them fell down. Bhuneshwar Singh sustained injuries on his head and became unconscious. He was immediately taken to the Medical College Hospital, Raipur from where he was transferred to MASI Hospital, Raipur where he died during treatment. Report of the incident was lodged in the Police t Station Abhanpur. The claimants, who are brothers of the deceased, have I, filed claun application arraying widow of the deceased as non-applicant ,No.4'i.e, appellant-herem, and claimed compensation to the tune of •\ 2 Rs.5,95,000/- jointly and severally from the non-appliconts No.l to 3 on the ground that on account of untimely death of the deeeased they have suffered irreparable loss. 4. Non-applicants No.l to 3 had filed their respective written statements denying claim of the claimants. 5. Non-applicant No.4, who is widow of the deceased, has also filed her written statement and in which she has claimed a sum of Rs.5,95,000/- as compensation on the ground that she is only entitled for compensation / being Class-1 heir bf the deceased, as specified in the Schedule appended to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 6. The Claims Tribunal vide impugned award not only dismissed claim of the claimants therein but also the claim of the appellant herein raised in the written statement. 7. We haveheard learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 8. Perusal of the impugned award shows that though in answer to the Issue No.4, which was regarding entitlement of the appellant herein to receive compensation for the death of deceased Bhuvneshuuar Sahu, the Claims Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the non-applicant No.4 is the Class-1 heir of deceased Bhuneshwar Sahu, however, rejected her prayer for grant of compensation on the ground that she has not filed any apptication along with requisitecourt fee for deleting her name from the array of tion-applicants and impleading her as one of the claimanTs. Further, she has only contended in her written statement regarding paymentof compensation to her being Class-1 legal heirof thedeceased, but she did not file any separate application for compensation and therefore she,is not entitled to get compensation for the death of the deceased. • -»-. 9. Section 166 (1) of the Act provides that an application for compensation ijpising oyt of art aceident of the nature specified in sub-section (l)of ' . , > Se'ction 165may be hiade;- ' ^> wR .*"i'liMi.EfeA: ^" fc, """^' A» ^i ^. ^. '^.. "^a ^^ a. by the person who has sustained the injury; or b. by the owner of the property; or c. where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or d. by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as case may be. According to proviso to this sub-section where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. lO.Thus, it is clear thatlegal representatives of the deceased can be impleaded as r.espondent to the claim application and there is no restriction in this regard. 11. As far as the finding of the Ctaims Tribunal that the appellant herein is not entitled for any compensation as she has not filed any separate application along with court fee for deleting her name from the array pf non-applicants and impleading her as one of the claimants is concerned,the Scheme of compensation asit appears has been embodied in the Statute with an object to save vagraricy of the dependent of the victim. Further, Section 165 of the Act provides jurisdiction to the Court to determine as to whom the compensation is payable and for this, dependency is the prima i facie factor. 12.In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the appellant is the w(idow of deceased and prior to death of thedeceased, she was dependent on earning of the deceased and as such, she cannot be denied compensation merely on the ground that she has been impleaded as non-applicant, particularly when theobject of theScheme is to save vagrancy of the dependent of victim. Therefore, we are of the opinion that finding of the Cldims Tribunal that since the appellaht has been impleaded as non- applicant in the claim petition, therefore, she is not entitled for any 'compensation,. is erronepus. The Claims Tribunat should have considered the question ofjrant of compensation to the widow of deceased,who wgs —-..•^. 's-iy' *?," lrfl c..- non-applicant No.4 before it, byt the same has not been done in the instant case and therefore, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Claims Tribunal. 13. Even otherwise, Section 168 provides that on receipt of an application for compensation, the Claims Tribunal shall hold an inquiry into the claim. Section 169 prescribes procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunal and says that in holding any inquiry under Section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of takingevidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the CPC. Besides this, in Rule 226 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 it has been provided that the Claims Tribunal shall conduct enquiry to ascertain the fact. 14. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal in part, set aside the impugned award, so far as it relates to rejection of claim of the appellant herein regarding grant of compensation, andremit the matter back to the Claims Tribunal for taking decision afresh in respect of the claim of the non-applicant No.4/appellant herein in light of observations made in this order. Needless to mention that the Claims Tribunal shall provide opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, and amend the pleadingsor to file documents or verify the documents already filed. 15. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal concerned on 25 July. 2011. The Registry is directed to transmit the record of the claims tribunal concerned without further delay. Sd/- 16. No ordw.as t6 costs. G. Judge 'N Roshan/- • - /; Sd/- lA^-Quddusi Jadge n