^. IH TBE HI&H GOBB3! QP JTOIGAIBBE AT BILASPUBCGiIHffl'rISSaBB) ^J MISCELEAHEOTJS APEEAJE, Ho.M^ QE' S0t@ APISA.L_0/S_123_QF_THi;_HCffi®_'gBHICISS_AC!r^ig882 -7- ( APPEAL 7ALTJED AT Bs.ll-,08,000/- } ^l N /t ,r "cf tf ».<* AH-APELICAN'E No.4 y <fc w^^"' <w^ ..*••' BESPOHDEB'FS : APjClCAHT Ho.1A APELICAHI Ho.1B A5PLICAHT Ko.1C A^UCMS Ho.1B /' APPXO&NT Ho.1B Tfle Mew India Assuranee Coapany Llaa.'tiel^, g t'a.ronga. its Btylsional Manager, T .Pl.H^gt^[ Korba, Tah.& Bist: Korba (G.6). ; i| [{ Vs. \ ' •' :\ f.. ; ^Sat.Badha Marayi, wife of G-anps'a - 'Haravi, aged about 22 years. i i^ . ' . ' • . . ' i : -/l Ninor Priya Kuaari, daugflter pf late ©aaeshBaravi, aged abou-}; 5 years. i ^! : ^ HinorPrateasa Knaar, son of late y Ganesn Hgravi, aged about 2 year's. 1B aad 1G, 'bo-bh axnors tflreu^i' their mether aad natural gBEli'flian Sat.Badha Maravi. !'^' • .^J^Hahadey son of Blntulal Maravi, ^ aged about 61 years. : c^/SBt;.Sumit;ra Devi, wife of Haaadev \^aravi, aged a'bo'a-fc 1)-? years. All residents of M.D/3 Subhasa Bloefc,^ S.E.e.L. Korba, P.S.Kotwali Korba, Mst: Kerba (G.G) : -Ate '•^ ^; -tp:>> BSgPOHBENT Mo.2 /_ -APPLIGAHI Ho.1 BgSPCBBSNT Rp.3 •^OH-APPLIGAM Ho.2 Basil Singh^ son of Srl Saan&ar Siagh|, | i aged about 59^-ears, residen'fciof ; : |;!: ^aarter Bo.27?, Adarsh Hagar, iKQSHauBlaa.;, P.S.KasaBanda,Dist;: Korba (G.&). ! i ir ^c'S.E.G.L. thronga ifes Galef Serieral &aaager, EiasuBmida, P.S.EHsH^iBBaa,J; 3'ah: Katghora, Bisi:K6rba (G<S) \:', :f' -^ "li'., •V s EBSi'OHBEHT BQ.II. Beeadayal Agrawal, son of */7 jyydlUeyfctJL ^Z ^l-ctWd-L 5 KU ^QS^.S^FLIGASS Ho.3 ^-^•ParaBieswarilal Agrawal, resident of ^ c Siilv Brothers, Power House Boad, Korba, P.S.Ko'&wali Korba,Bist;Korba(e.8) (Owner of Vehicle ITo.HP 26 W/1169 ) HISH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR.SULAM^INHAJUD&IN. JJ Vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Smt. Radha Maravi A others ttr. A.K. Athaley, Advocate for the appellant. AAr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate for respondent No.lA to 1E i& 4. M". J.A. Lohani, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORDER (Oral) th 1. Heard. 2. The appeilant-Insurance Compony, hds filed this appeal against the award dated 14.1.2003 passed by the learned 3 Additional AAotor Acc'dent Claims Tribunal, Koriya (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.113/02 thsreby partly allowing appiication of the claimants, awardin9 compensation oind fastenin9 liability on the appellant herein. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.3.2001 deceased Sanesh Maravi was travelling in the Jeep bearing registration number MP26-W-1169 and going towords Mine No.2, Kusmunda. On the way, one bozer bearing registration No.b/355 Sr. No.10888, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed the Jeep of the deceased as n result of which he sustnined grievous injuries and died on the spot. Report of the accident was lodged in the Police Station Kusmunda. The claimants, who are widow, children and parents of the deceased, have filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988') seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.92,84,000/- mainly on the ground that they were dependent on the deceased, who was ttie sole earning member in the family, and due to his death they have suffered loss of income. ^ --4> / "'r1^ , !:,iJiJ ^y 2 n'^ : i i 4. The Claims Tribunal, after hearing the parties in the matter, atlowed the claim application in part, awarded a sum of Rs.4,23,000/- along witii interest © 9% p.a. and held the appellant and the respondsnt Nos.2 & 3 herein jointly and seyerally responsible to satisfy the award. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as also the record of the Claims Tribunal. 6. In the instant case the ctaim application under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 was filed by the family members of the deceased who was driver of the Jeep. The Claims Tribunal partly allowed the said appiication and fastened liability jointly and seyerally upon the appetlant-Insurance Company of the jeep as also on 1+ie respondents No.2 A 3 herein i.e. SECL and owner of the jeep. But, we feel that if there was any contributory ne9ligence on the part of the drivers of the jeep i.e. the deceased, and the t>ozer, the Claims Tribunal should have mentioned the extent of percentage of contributory negligence but the Claims Tribunat has nowhere mentioned about the percentage of disability. Further, if the deceased, himself was negligent, the claim application under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 was not maintainable. All the aforesaid aspects have not been considered by the Claims Tribunal and, therefore, in our opinion, the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Claims Tribunal. 7. In the result, we allow the qipeal in part, set nside the impugned award and remit the matter back to 1+ie Claims Tribunal to decide the matter afresh in light of the observations made in this order, in accordance with law. However, at the initial stage, if the claimants move EOT application for conversion of qiplication filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 into an ttpplication filed under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 or for withdrawal of claim petition with liberty to file claim application under the Wor-kmens Compensation Act, 1923, the Claims Tribunal shatl altow such qiptication. In case, the claimants choose to file application before the Workmen's Compensation Ac-t, 1923, they woutd at liberty to fiie the same. The appellaint-Insurance Company shatl be allowed to withdraw the amount already deposited by it. -7. Rg!j ili!i h^u^^. ; :iMi-9^~^ 'f:. xy Rojihttn/- 8. The pnrties are directed to appear before the Ciaims Tribunat concerned on 4 January. 2012 either in person or 1+irough their counsel. Ths Registry is directed to transmit record of the Claims Tribunal concerned without further delay. 9. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge G.