^•r^.^^MM'^'W'-^-^*— PAGE }^ ^^ .-^siaai^faaeswssa'^ • i.r-^ Division Bencfe BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(ClNo. ^^ 1200-S >'^ APPELLANT DEFENDANT N0.3 :1 ^^!S^> ^••;-;;:S'c^^ AGd^s':* '^.^^••^''- s%^" ^.(.^^•'/ ^-$^1 D^ VERSUS IFFCO- TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, Plot no.7, 1st Floor, Kwality Business centre, Zone II, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) RESPONDENTN0.1 CLAIMANT N0. 1 <^ 1. Rajendra Kumar Mahapatra S/o Late Somnath Mahapatra, Aged About 47 years, Forest Guard, Resident of New Forest Clolony, Jagdalpur, District Bastar' (Chhattisgarh) RESPONDENT N0.2 CLAIMANT NQ, 2 2. Smt. Sarita Mahapatra, W/o Rajendra Kumar Mahapatra, Aged about 42 years, Resident of New Forest Clolony, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) ^^ .^^ ^•^^•"u^'\^^'V'u''Uu''^^'^'-o'-u'\^'^^'^'u''^'0''u'\/'Li'\./''JVL/''(a "^A .^. -/»tt*.»y» "rf»<f'«(arrW' RESPONDENT N0.3 DEFENDANTN0.1 RESPONDENT N0.4 DEFENDANT N0.2 ^ PAQE N. ^^ -7 3. Sayyed Abid Ali, S/o Sayyed Ismile Ali, Aged About 30 years, Resident of Dandkarn Samachar Patra Press Near Vrindavan Colony Madrasa, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar, (Chhattisgarh) (Driver of Tata 709, having registration no. CG 17 H 0260) 4. Santosh Tiwari, S/o Shankarlal Tiwari, Aged About 35 years, Resident of Moti Talab Para , Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (Chhattisgarh); (Owner of Tata 709, having registration no. CG 17 H 0260) ^ MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 / /-^ %^^s- HIOH COURT OP CjUIATTlSQARH, BILASPUR DB: Hon*ble I. M. QUDDU8I & Hoa*Me O. MINHAJUDDIW, JJ APPBLLANT: RBSPONDBNT8: M.AtCI. NO.S65/2008 IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. Rajendra Kuinar Mahapatra. aad others 37 MI8C. APPEAL UNDER SBCTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VEmCLESACT. 1988 Appearaxice: Mr. Vikrant Singh, coiiasel for fhe appellant Ms. Sunita Jaia, counsel for respoadents 1 & 2, Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, counsel for respondents 3 & 4. Pet I.M. OUDDUSI. J. ORAL ORDBR (29.06.2011) 1. This appeal has been filed by fhe Insuraace Compaay agauist the impugaed award dated 31.07.2007 passed by fhe Motor Accident Claiins Tnbunal, Bastar (C,G) ia Claimi Case No.64/2005 m so far as it relates to quaatum part only. 2. The Insuraace Company had got permission u/ s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act from fhe Claims Tribiinal. 3. Brief facts of fhe case as per the version of claiinants are that on 16.08.2004 deceased Nitm Kuinar was going to Chitrakoot by his Scooter along-wifh his friends to see fhe waterfaU. At fhat tuiie, at about 2.00 p.in. respondent no.3 who was dnviag the Tata Vehicle bearing Regn.. No, C.G, l7/ H/ 0260 ia a rash and neffUe^nt manner dashed the Scooter, ,.^^ t ...-.^f%^-., ff:.^'11 :^^/ ^ as a result of which, fhe deceased sustaiaed iajiuies aad died on the spot At fhe time ofaccident, the deceased was aged about 20 years. He was doiag the busiaess of datly needs aad was also ninning an STD/PCO aad fhercby he was eammg Rs.5000/- per monfh. The claiiaants being dependents/legal rcpresentatives have filed claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vetdcles for fhe award of total compensation ofRs.26,00,000/- onvarious heads. 4. Learaed Claims Tnbunal haviag regard to fhe facts situatioii has awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,60,000/- which fhe claimants are entitled to receive fix>m the appeHaiit and respondents 3 & 4. 5. We have heard learaed coiinsel for fhe parties aad have also gone fhrough fhe records ofthe Tnbunal. 6. Though fhe PCO was not ia the iiame of fhe deceased but fhe same was bemg run by him. His monfhly mcome has been shown as Rs,5000/- per monfh which has been accepted by the Clainis Tribunal. But fhis foct has not been taken iato consideration fhat one offhe claimants i.e., fatfaer was a Goveniment Servant He was a forest guard. Therefore, fhe question reinaias that wheffaer fhe fafher was dependent upon the deceased aad whether tfae mofher was totally dependent upon the deceased or on her husband, It has also not come on record fhat whefher fhe mcome finom PCO is stiU bein.g received by fh.e claimaats or not Thereforc, we ^re of the opiaion that fhe Tribunal has not assessed fhe loss of dependency properly. There is difference between loss of iacome aad loss of dependency m motor accident ^ IBI^ claim cases, The Tribunal has to decide fhe loss of dependency aad not fhe loss of iacome aad therefore fhe Tribuiial shoiild have also conducted a proper enquiry as provided in sections 168 & 169 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of C.G. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 to ascertaia the trufh aad should have given tiie finding especially regardiag loss ofdependency, 7. In view of fhe above^ fhe niatter requires reconsideration at fhe end ofthe Tribunal, Hence, we allow tius appeal ia part, set aside the impugned award dated 31.07.2007 and rcrait fhe matter back to the Tnbiiiial for decision afiresh ia the light of fhe observations niade hercinabove. 8. Needless to mention fhat tihie parties shall be allowed to amend fhe pleadiags, adduce fiirther evidence, jfile documents or get the documents verified etc., and fhereafter the Tnbunal shaU niake fhe award a&esh. The parties shaU appear beforc the Tribunal on 27th Julv. 2011. The records of the Tribunal shatl be sent back forthwifh. 9. The amount which has atoeady been deposited by fhe appeUaat shaU remaia ia fixed deposit tttt fhe award afresh is passed. No order as costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao