d) ^'jt^s IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. f0 NO/q. /2010 APPELLANT^ : NON-APPLICANT5 (^NO. Of ro Q3) ^ ^.^ l^.^- ^"'n^ ..•••••"r'y^' ••^•:-\.^'v % ^:-" ^" •e'^' ^T- (1) Chhattisgarh State Garage Mantralaya, Through: The Officer-in-Charge Chhattisgarh State Garage D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (Registered owner ofVehicle No.C.G.02-2781). (2) The Principal Secretary, State ofChhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (Owner in possession of vehicle no. C.G. 02 - 2781). (3) State ofChhattisgarh Through: The Collector, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS APPLICANTS CNO.M TO os) VERSUS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) w H3 O? lij III SR'SSS dla<§ m ^ 0? @3 Ri •^ :~-] :"^ §£§' °b? ma Smt. Om Kumari Sahu, Wd/o Late Jhumuklal Sahu, Aged about 40 years. RakeshKumar, S/o Late Jhumuklal Sahu, Aged about 19 years. MukeshKumar, S/o Late Jhumuklal Sahu, Aged about 17 years. Kumari Vandana, D/o Late Jhumuklal Sahu, Aged about 15 years. Kanshiram S/o Late Videshi Ram Sahu, Aged about 72 years. Respondent no. 3 and 4 minors, Through mother and guardian Smt. Om Kumari Sahu, W^o Jhumuklal Sahu^R/o Village Chhikli, Police Station SihawaNagri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. At present residing at Village and post Vishrampuri, Tahsil Keskal, District Bastar (C.G) APPEAL U/S 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT VALUED AT RUPEES 14,60,600/- /-^-^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. Apoellant Defendant Respondents Claimant M.A. fcl No. 872/2009 State of Chhattisgarh Vs Smt. Chintamani and others M.A. rcl No. 692/10 Appellants Non-Applicants No. 1to3 Respondents Applicants No. 1 to 5 Vs Chhattisgarh State Garage Mantralaya and others. Smt. Om Kumari Sahu and others Present: Mr. Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate General forthe State/appellants. Mr. Vivek Verma, counsel for respondents in MAC No.872/09. Mr. Satyendra Sahu, counsel for respondents in MAC No.692/10. =R(Oran (13th October, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Since these two appeals arise out of the same accident, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These appeals have been fited by the State and are directed against the impugned awards dated 26.12.2008 & 15.3.2010 passed in Claim Cases No.52/08 & 171/09 respectively by the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (in short "the Tribunal"). 3. Cross-objection has also been filed by respondents No. 1 to 5 in h4ACNo.692/10. / / ' • ''-^. 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.8.2007 Mahesh Baghel was going to his Vidhan Sabha constjtuency Keshkal for inspection in his official vehicte Ambassador bearing registration No. CG-02/2781 along with his friends. At that time. at about 8.40 pm, the driver of the said Ambassador by driving the vehide in a rash and negligent manner, turned it turtle near Mohan Dhaba at National Highway No.43, as a result of which the car caught fire and was centrally locked, on account of whfoh the persons inside the car could not come out and were burned to death inside the car itself on the spot. The driver of the vehicle also died on the spot. 5. At the time of acddent, deceased Mahesh Baghel was a healthy man of 46 years. He being the MLA of Keshkal Vidhan Sabha constituency and Parliamentary Secretary was getting Rs.20,000/- per month. Therefore, the claimants, who are widow and chlldren of the deceased, filed a daim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehides Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988") for a total compensation of Rs.67,50.000/- against the death of Mahesh Baghel under various heads. 6. One Jhumuk Lal Sahu, who, at the relevant time. was working as incharge Agriculture Development Officer in District-Bastar in the Agriculture Department. Block Headquarters-^ishrampuri, was also traveling in the said Ambassador car and died due to the unfortunate accident. Therefore. his widow, children and father being his legal heirs filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 for a total compensation of Rs.57.84,000/- against the death ofJhumuk Lal undervarious heads. 7. However, learned Tribunal, after close scrutiny of the evidence available on record, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, by the^ impugned award dated 26.12.2008 awarded a total compensation of Rs.16.00.000/- in favour of claimants/legal heirs of deceased Mahesh Baghel, and by the impugned award dated 15.3.2010 awarded a total compensation of Rs.14.60,000/- in favour of claimants/legal heirs of deceased Jhumuk Lal, fastening the Jiability upon the appellants/State. .3 l' '• 8. Heard leamed counsel for the parties. perused the lower court record (LCR) as wetl as the impugned award. 9. In MAC No.872/09, learned Dy. Advocate General Shri Vinay Harit. has raised the only contention regarding quantum. Though the deceased was an MLA for the time being, whose tenure was temporary, but his jncome was treated as permanent income by the Tribunal, which had occurred in the capacity of being an MLA as wellas Pariiamentary Secretary. 10.1n view of the facts and drcumstances of the case, in our opinion, the matter requires reconsideration for determination of average income of the deceased. taking into consideration his past income also. 11.Wfth regard to MAC No.692/10. Shri Vinay Harit. learned Dy. Advocate General, has raised the contention that deceased Jhumuk Lal Sahu was an unauthorized occupant in the vehicle. However, we do not agreewith the same as once the seat was occupied by deceased Jhumuk Lal in the vehicle. which was allotted to the MLA, who was also sitting inside the vehide and in his presence deceased Jhumuk Lal occupied the seat. it cannot be said that occupation of the deceased was withoyt consent of the person j.e. the MLA, to whom the vehide was allotted. Therefore, it js held that deceased Jhumuk Lal Sahu was not an unauthorized occupant of the vehicle. 12.However, Shri Harit has submitted that an ex-gratia payment of Rs.25,000/- was made to the deceased due to the accident in question as well as one of the family members of the deceased has been granted compassionate appointment. But all these facts have not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while deciding the claifti petition. Therefore, the case of the ciaimants is also liabte to be reconsidered by the daims Tribunal, insofar as jt relates to quantum part only. 13. Therefore, we allow both the appeals in part. set aside the quantum part of the impugned awards and remit the matter back to the Tribunal to re-assess the quantum, in the light of observations f' yj made above, so that the appellants may make payment of the same. 14-The amount which has already been deposited pursuant to the impugned awards, shall be kept jn fixed deposit in a nationalized bank for a period of oneyear and shall be subject to the decision to be taken afresh bythe Tribunal. ^ Needless to mention that the parties shall also be allowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence, fite documents and get the documents verified etc. and thereafter, fresh fjndings shall be given bythe Tribunal and award shall be passed afresh. 15.3ince the matter has been remitted back to the Tribunal, the cross- objection has become infructuous. 16. LCR shall be sent back to the Tribunal without further detay. 17. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 28th November, 2011. 18. No order as to costs. 19. Certified c$py as per rules. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge l^