.f'". [^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.fQ N0. \ ^ j^j^;n Fl^^^f ^a ^^s'jl^l / 2008 Appellant Claimant ^-^ ^ A ....••>^.^<^.< ^•€'^ ^"i" VERSUS Respondents s 2. ^- Ram Narayan Singh S/o Shri Gulab Singh Rajpur, Aged about 36 years, R/o Village - Nonbirra, Thana - Pali (Wrongly mentioned in the impugned order as Palari), Distt. Korba-(C.G.) : ^._1. The Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Company Ltd., Madina Building, Near Jail Road, Kacheri Chowk, Raipur- (C.G.) (Insurer ofTruck No.CG-04- J/9047) Shivdayal Singh Rajput S/o Gulab Singh Rajput, Aged about 34 years, R/o Village - Nonbirra, Thana - Pali, Distt. Korba-(C.G.) (Owner of Truck No.CG04J- 9047) MISC APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTQR y- VEHICLE ACT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (Q No. 1701 OF 2008 APPELLANT RESPONDBNTS Ram. Narayan Singh Versus The Divisional Manager and another DIVISION BENCHi- Hon. Shri Satish K. Agmhotori and. Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, JJ . PRESBNT: Shri Deepak Jain, Advocate, for appeUant. Shri Saurabh Sharma, Adv. for respondent No, 1. ORAL ORDBR (3-12-2009) Per N.K. Aeansal, J 1. Heard. The instant appeal has been directed by the appellant/claimaat agaiiist tlie award dated 24-10- 2008 passed by the IInd Additional Motor Accident Clatms Tribimal, Balauda Bazar, Distt. Raipiir in Claim Case No. 4/2008 whereby and whereunder fhe claun petition of the claimant filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (briefly, tthe Act^ has been rejected. Brief facts of the case are that the diiver of vehicle No. CG 04-J/9047 when gomg from Gevra to Raipur near viUage Limtara, met with an accident and piu-suant to that, he sustained serious injuries. He preferred an application nnder Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the driver, owner and insurer of the truck claiming Rs. 10,00,000/~ as compensation for the tnjury sustained by him tn the said accident. Leamed Tribunal on a close scrutiny ofthe evidence led, fhe material placed and the submissions made 7. 8. by fhe pai-ties, holding the age ofthe claim.ant as 36 years; monthly tncome at Rs. 6,300/- as against the income pleaded Rs. 3,300/-; the claimant himsetf responsible for the said accident and was not having valid and effective driving licence at fhe time of accident, disniissed the claim petition. Hence this appeal. Shri Deepak Jain, leamed counsel for the appellant would submit that fhe finding recorded by leamed Tribunal fhat the claimaiit himsetf was negligent is peryerse. He would further contend that the findtng with regard to iavalid driving licence is based on no evidence and fhat also deserves to be set aside. He prayed for awarding fhe amount of compensation as assessed by leamed Tribunal. Per contra, Shri Saurabh Sharma, leamed counsel appearmg for the respondent No. l/ tasurance Company has supported the award and subniitted that the award is based on sound reasons and fhe same deserves to be upheld. He would further submit that smce the mcome assessed by leanied Tribunal is more fhan Rs. 40,000/- per year aad, therefore, even on this count, as the petition under Section 163-A of fhe Act is not maintainable, the award passed by leamed Tribunal desei-ves to be upheld. We have heard leamed counsel for the parties. The First Infonnation Report was lodged agatast unknown vehicle. As per the material placed on record and evidence adduced by the parties, the said accident occurred due to rash and negMgent driviag by the driver of that unknown vehicle and not by the claimant. There is not an iota of evidence to suggest, the clahnant driving fhe sald vehicle .-_...^^j 'l W-y 9. 10. rashly and negligenfly. In fhis view of the matter, ttie finding recorded by leanied Tribunal regarding appellant's responsibility in tiie cause of said accident is not well founded and not sustainable in law. Further the finding recorded by leamed Tribunal that the claimant did not have valid and effective driving licence is also based on no evidence. Bvcn fhis plea has not been taken by the Insurance Company. Shri Shanna failed to substantiate fhe finding recorded by leamed Tribunal with regard to invalid driving licence, and therefore, the said llndiag is also not sustainable tn law. The contention raised by Shri Sharma, leamed coiuisel for fhe Insurance Company ftiat the income assessed by leamed Tribunal is more that Rs. 40,000/- per annum and, therefore fhe claim under Section 163-A of the Act is not maintaiaable is also sans substance. As per claimant's pleading, income of the appellant was Rs. 3,300/- per month which is well within the limit of Rs. 40,000/- per annum, however the income assessed by leamed Tribunal as Rs. 6,300/- perse seems to be erroneous. The clatm preferred by fhe Claimant was under Section 163-A of fhe Act; income pleaded is Rs. 3,300/- per month and, therefore, fhe amount of compensation assessed based on monthly income of Rs. 6,300/- is certainly erroneous; not sustainable in law and deserves re-consideration. In view of the above, we are of the considerecl opinion that it would be just and proper to remand fhe case to fhe Tribunal for consideration on ttie potnt of income of the claimant and grant of compensation. In view of the foregoing, the impugned award dated 24-10-2008 is set aside. The matter is remanded ^x^ lr£l.\ ^VSs. 1 ^ 4 11. 12. back to tiie Tribunal for a fresh consideration and determination of fhe ineome of fhe appellant and compensation, in accordance with law, on its own merits. The Tribunal may consider ofb.er evidences also ifadduced by fhe parties. The appeal is aUowed to the above extent. No order as to costs, The Registry is directed to send back the papers, requisitioned from tfae Tribunal forthwifh. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge y-