i£^&^'/i^!: HIGHCOURTOFCHHATnSGARMATBltASPUR Sina!eBench:Hon?bleShnDjiJafteosahebDeshmukh,J.^ ADDellants MisceilaneousADDealfCyNo.^2of2M07 1,< Kanhaiya L.al Gajpal : ) S/oShnBJsahuRam^^^^^ Agedabout45^ars.j 2. Praveen KumarGajpal j - S/o Kanhaiya Lal Gajpal, j , Agedab&ut20years.j 3. Ku. VandanaG^ D/oKahhaiyaLatQajpat, j AgedaboutlSyears.i 4. Gopesh Kumar Gajpal | S/oKanhaiyaLaiGajpal, j Aged about 12 yeara minpr tdrough iegal guardian fatlier Kanhaiya Lal (Appellant 'NQ.15;.'f/' l:';i.; ! :l'".l/ .:;; ^;"lt Ail are resident of LIG-1 f2@2, M. P. Housing Board, Kumhari, Post-lfCumhari^^^^^^^^^^^ Dhamdha, District Durg (Q.G.) l:'Versy&':Y':'''.',:::::^ Respondents 1. , Kanti lal S/o RgdheshyamjSahu , R/o Shanti Nagar, KumHari, Aged aboyt^^^^^^ <.not Known^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^F^ Dhamdha, DistrictDurg(C.G.): (Driver of Vehjcle Mahindra Champion C:G.NO.Q4-T/139) { 2. GoyeTdhan Sahu, S/6 Vjsh^ Aged about 42 years,^^ ^ Shriram Tower, T^tiband^^^^ B Tahsii&DistrietRaipur(C.p.) (Qwner of the Vehicle Maliiirtdra Champion C.G.Nb.04-T713&) j 3. National^ .Insumnce Gompany Bhitai, Tt-rakkar^ChamberN, G.E.Road, in frontpfProtjectAutbmot:>i|^,PowerHouse, BhilaJ,Tahsil&DistrJctDui|9(C.G.) MemorandumofaDDeat^nderSeotionlT^oftheM^^ Pfgsent : ShrJH.F^^fawal,^ ShnS.P.^ahu.counsetfbr^^ Nopnea^peafaon^ ShrrDasrat|(3u|ta,^^^^TO^ ;No.3/insuranpeCorppany^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ 1:1;:1.1 ^m: c~- —2-' ^.- Tumane OS^ALORDER (Passed on 04 December, 2007) At the request of fearned counsei for the parties, this appeal is being disposed offinallyat the stage ofadmission. - (2) Brieffactsarethaton 21-10-2005 SmtTaramaniGajpat v^straveliing in a Mahindra Champion Vehicie bearing Registration Number CG.04/C/1359 from Raipur to Bhilai. On the bridge of Kharun Rjver, one unknown truck coilided with the said Mahindra Champion Vehicie causing death of Smt.|TaramarM-Gajpal. The ynknown truckcoufd not beidentified/The appeilants/claimantswho ara the lega! representatives of tha Smt. Taramani Gajpal had fiied an apptication under Section 166of the Motor Vehicles Act (Ciaim Case No.36 of 2006). The applicatjon under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was aiso fiied. The Motor Acoidents Claims Tribuna! instead of declding the appiication fited under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act rejected the application on the ground that it wpuid be appropnate to decide the Claim Case No.36 of 2006 on merit The approach of the Motor Accidents Clasms Tribunal is wholly erroneous and oontrar^ to law. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ought to have considered whether in a case of the present nature, the non-applicants were liable to pay interim compensation under Section 140 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act or not. (3) In this view of the matter, the miscelianeous appeai is ailowed and the impugned order passed by the 7 Additional Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribunai, (F.TQ), Durg in Claim Case No.36 of 2006 is set aside. The Motor Accidents Ciajms Tribunal is directed to decide the application under SectJon 140 of the Motor Veh'fcles Act on merit within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of thisprder. j Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge .X \-