IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^PPELLANT CLAIMANT XESPONDENT M.A.(C.) No...<^€.0.../2011 ..•' : ^Sant Ram Dewangan S/o Shri Lagan Sai, Aged about 28 years, R/o Purana Kanshi Nagar, Post Office Kosabadi, TahsU & District Korba (C.G.) VERSUS ^ United India Insurance^Company Limited, Through Branch oV^ .^/^^ .-•°" Manager, Branch Office Stadium Road, T.P. Nagar Korba, Tahsil & District Korba (C.G.) ^-^ ^^^••^ ^<"' ^--'^ ^^' MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988. <-'££s='%5s-,. r^r^\ ->^ HIQH <»®RTOFaUHATTISQARH, BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble I. M. QUDDUSI te Hon*Me G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ M.AtCt 110.760/20ll APPBLLANT: RB8PONDBNT8: Sant Ram Dewaagaxt Vs. Uiuted Iiidia lasiirance Compaoy MI8C. APPBAL UNDBR SBCTION 173 OP THB niOTOR VBBICLE8 ACT. 1988 Appearance: Mr, Sameer Siagh^ counsel for fhe appellaiit Mr. Saajay S. Agrwal, appears and takes notiee 011 behalfoffhe respondexit. Per I.M. OODDVSI. J. ORALOWySR (2'7.0'7.201l) 1. Ttds appeal haa been filed by fhe claimant ag^nst the impugned oxder dated 09.12.2010 passed by fhe Motor Accident Claiois Tdbunal, Korba, Distt Korba (C.G) ia Clato Case No. 152/2009 dismissing the claim petition of the appeUant. 2. Brief facts of the case as per fhe version of clamiaat/injiired are that on 04.06.2009 fhe claimaat injured was goiag to Dsari from Korba by driviag his motorcycle bearing Regn.no.C.G,12- M/2755, On the way near Kohdiya school wlien he pressed flie clutch, it was broken aad the motorcycle became uncontroUed aad stonick agaiast an etectric pole, as a rcsult of which, he sustsdned iajuries aiid became permaxientty disabled. He filed claiin petition u/s 163-A of fhe Motor Vefaicles Act for fhe v rv ;\%?- award of total conipensation of Rs. 10,53,800/- on varioias heads. 3. Admittedly, fhe claimaait was owner of the Motoreycle aad he met wifh accident by driviag his motoicycle without mvolving aay oflier vehicle, 4. In the matter of Orlental Itriurance Conijwmy Ltd. V». Rqjni Devi reported in (2008) S 8CC 736 Hon'bte the Supreme Court has held fhat Section 163-A of ffa^ Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 caanot l said to have any sqppUcation m regard to ao. accident whercin fhe owner of the mcrtor vehicle himself is involved, It was furtfaer held fhat fhe Uability under Seetion 163-A ofthje Act is on fhe owner offhe vehicle since a person cannot be bofh, a claunant as also a recipient 7. Furftier ia fhe matter of Mngmnmn & cmotlwr Vs< Oinlted Jindta Insunmcc Compang' Ifimitcd {2009^ 13 SSX! 710 Honl3le the Supreme Court followiag fhe case of Rcym Devi (supra) held m Para 22 as under:- a 22. In a case whereia fhe victim died or wherc he was penxianently disabled due to an accident arisiag out of fhe aforesaid motor vehicle in that event the Uability to niake payment of fhe conipensatioa is on fhe insurance compaay or fhe owner, as th^ caa^ xnay be, as provided under Section 163-A. But if it is proved tiiat fhe driver is the owner of fhe motor vehicle, in fhat case the owuer could not himself be a recipieiit of compensation as the liabiUty to pay the same is on him, This proposition is absolutely clear on a readmg ofSection 163-A offhe MVA. 11. In view of tiie above, we are of fhe opiiuon fhat (he claim petition ffled u/s 163-A of tfae MVA is not maiataiaable and fhere is no good ground to mterfere ia tfae iiapttgned oider dated 09.12.2010, Therefore, this appeal is liable to be aaid is hereby dismtesed, However^ fhis will not debar fhe clamiaat to file a fresh claim petition uader fhe rclevant pxovisions of law for the time beiaig m force. R^o Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge