3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. fc.) No. (<^^_ /2008 Appellant pre 1^D(^ n-, ^f^" Rai ^s ^ ^M- ^ '^^y~ '..'..^' •G' <'1 .A--" Resoondents -~~n< •< - . '-• • -V Versus 1. t-. ^ Smt. Durga Bai @ Rupwati Chouhan,W/o. LatePanikram, aged about- 32years, R/o. present- Chhote Atarmuda, Raigarh, Permanent R/o. - Panjari Plant, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.) Santosh Kumar Soni S/o. Kunkun Prasad Soni, aged about- 31 years,0ccupation- Vehicle Owner and Driver, R/o. Ranisagarpara, Ward No. 9, Sakti,Tahsil Sakti, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch No. 15, Get No. 4, 6th floor , Poddar kort, 18 Ravindra Sarani, Colkata (West Bengal) Pin No.700001, Through:- Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Megma, Vyapara Vihar, Priyadarshini Nagar, Bilaspur, Tahsil, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) \a nlN 3. Rukmani Bai W/o. Amalal Chouhan, R/o. Danaut, District- Raigarh (C.G.) MEMORANDUM OFAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFTHE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 AP^. ^ 1-7-11-ot -»•> .•••>. HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. (Cl No. 175 of2008 AppeUant Sint. Dui^a Bai @ Rupwati Chouhan Versus Respondents Santosh Kiunar Soni & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 DB: HonTile Shri Satish K. Agmhotri & Hon'ble ShriJustice N. K. Agarwal, JJ Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate for fh.e appcUaafc Shri Dashrath Lal, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri Raj Awasthy, Advocate for fhe respondent No.2. Shri. Manoj Jaiswal, Advocate for fhe respoiulent No.3. ORDER (OraB ( Passed on this 17tt> day of November, 2009 ) Per Satish K. Agnlhotri J. Heard. 1. This appeal arises fl'oin the award dated 31.10.2007, passed by the Fourth Additional Motor Acculeat Clauns Tribunal (F.T.C.)> Ra^arh in Claim Case No. 41/2006 (Duiga Bai Vs. Saatosh Kumar Soni & ofhcrs). The Tribuaal had passed this conuuon award dated 31.10.2007, disposing of fh.e Claiia Case No. 40/2006 (Ravishaukar Vs. Santosh Knmar soni & anofhei) also. 2. The claua ofthe appeUaat/claunant (Sint Durga Bai @ Rupwati Chouhaa) before fhe Tribuaal was that she te real sister of deceased Basaata Chouhan, who died oa accoiiat of the aBeged accident, which had taken place on 20.4.2006 at about 9.45 p.ia. at Rambtiantha, Sanjay Maidaa, Raigarh due to rash and negl^ent driving of the driver (Respondent No.l) of the vehicle Tata Sposio, bearmg regMtratioa No. C.G. ll-B/6867. The appellaat/claunant was living wifh the deceased as she was a - widow aiid she had no issue. The appellaat/claunaat was having pain ia her backboae, therefore,-the deceased was taking caae of the appeUaat/clainaant. Thus, she was dependent on fh;e deceased Basaufa Chouhaa. x 's-. -»•> ?.: 7. ^ x The respondent No.3 (Rukmaxu Bai) in her counter claim had stated tfaat she is also real sister of the deceased Basanta Bai (Basanta Chouliao). The deceased had been giviugsoine portion of her income to fhe respondent No.3 in order to help her. Thus, fhe claim of fhe respondent No.3 is fhat she was also a dependent of the deceased and she is also entifled for coinpensation ia acoordance wifh law. The claim of fhe appeUaat as weU as thc respoadent No.3 was. rejec.ted on the ground fhat fhey have failed to establish fhat fhey were depcndents ofthe deceased. Learaed counsel appearuig for appeUant subinite that ttic c]aua of fhe appeBant has been rejected by the Tribunal on fhe grouad that she is a married sister of the deceased. Learaed counsel, relying on a decisiou of HonTale Supreme Court in Smt. Manjurl Bera Vs. Orleatal Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.1 submits fhat at teast, fhe appellaat is entifled to compensation under the provisions of Sectton 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short'tih.e Act, 1988'). Hon'ble Supreme Court ia Smt. Manjurl Bera (supra) held as under; "14. There are several factors which have to be noted. The liability uuder Section 140 of the Act does not ccase because there-is absence of dependency. The r^ht to file a claua applicatk>n bas to be considered in fhc backgroiiad ofr^ht to entitleinenfc White assessiag fhe quantuin, fhe multiplier system is applied because of depnvation of dependency. In • ofher words, multiplier is a measure. There are fhree st^es while assessing the questton of entitlement, Firstty, fhe liability of fhe pa-son who is liable and fhe person who is to indexiuufy the Uabilily, if any. Next is fhe guantification aad Section 166 is primarily iu fhe iiature of recovery proceedmgs. As noted above, liabflily hi terms pfSection 140 offhe Act does not cease because ofabsence ofdependen.cy." Section 140, Chapter X of the Act, 1988 provides for Liabffity wifhout fault ia certain cases, which reads as under: X ' 2007 STPL (LE) 38180'SC ^'. '< . " fv\ 3 "140. LiabiHty to pay coinpensation in certain cases on fhe principle ofno fault — (1) Where death or permaaent disableiaenf of any person has resulted froai aa accident arisiug out of the use of a luotor vehicle or motor velucles, fhe owner of the vehicle shall, or, as the case inay be, ttie owuers of the vehicles shaU, joiaffy and severally, be liable to psy compensation ia respect of such deafh or disablement ia accordance with th.e provisioas of fhis ?ectk>n. (2)The ainount of coinpensation whictt shaU be payabte under sub-section (1) in respect offhe death ofaay person shaU be a fixed sum of (fifly fhousaad nipees) and fhe amouut of coinpensation payable uader that sub-section ia respect offhe permanent dteablemeut of any persou shaB be a flxed suin of (twenty-five thousand rupees). (3) In aay claim for coxnpensation under sub-section (1), fhe claimant shaU not be required to plead and establish that the deafh or permanent disableinent in respect of which fhe claiin has been inade was due to aay wroiigful act, neglect or default of fhe owner or owners of tfae vehlcle or vehicles conceraed or ofauy other person. (4) A clann for coinpensatiou under sub-section (1) sliatl not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person iu respect ofwhose deafh or perm.ancnt dlsableinent fhe claun has been inade nor shatl fhe quantuin of coinpensation recoverable in respect of such death or permaaeat disableinent be reduced on fhe basis of the share of such person in the responsibUity for such death or permaaeut disablem.ent. { (5) Notwifhstandiag auythiag contained in sub-section (2) regarding deafh or bodily iajuiy to any person, for which the owner of the vehicle is liable to give compensation for relief, he is also liable to pay coiapensation under any other law for fhe tune beiag in foxce: Provided that the amount of such coinpensation to be given under aay other taw shaU be reduccd finni the amount of coinpensadon payable iiadertfais section orunder section 163-A} '\'.. -•^- 8. Learned counsel appearmg for the respondent No. 2/Insuraace Coinpany, per contra, supports fhe award. 9. Haviug heard leamed counsel appearing for fhe pardes aad havmg perused the pleadings and docuinents appended thereto, it is evident fhat iu respect of fhe auswer to fhe issue No.l, fhe tribunal has held tbat fhe deceased Basaata Bal died as a result of fhe accident caused by the driver of fhe vehlcle, bearing registration No. C.G. ll-B/6867, whfle driving the velucle ia a rash aad negUgent niaiiner. 10. In view of the above, we are of fhe opiaion that it would be just aad proper to remand the case to fhe Tribunal for consideration on the poiat of grant of compensation under the provisions of Section 140 ofthe Act towards no fault liabilily. The Tribuaal may also consider aad decide the entitleinen.t of fhe appellant as weU as fhe respondent No.3, in accordance with law. 11. In vicw offhe foregQiag, the impugned award dated 31.10.2007 is set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribiinal for a fwah consideration and determination of fhe compcnsation under Section 140 of the Act, 1988, in accordance with tew, on its own merits. The Tribunal niay consider ofher cvidences also, if adduced by fhe partics. 12. Th.e parties are permitted to adduce additioiial evidences, if so advised. 13. The observations, if auy, inade hereinabove, shaU not be coustrued as our opiaion on merit 14. The appeal is allowed to fhe above extent No oider asto costs. 15. The Registry is directed to seud back fhe papers, requisitioned fi-oni the Tribunal, forthwith. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Sd/- N.K.Agarwa! Judge -»•» Thakur ?;: X ^'.