^) .SA^ ^^y IN IHB MZGH C30URT OF aiMATTXSQAm AT BILASPUR, f:^.n^ n^n^ yiviiiyH s^i <i M.A. N0. y^L /S 004 APPELLANT c" Shobharam S/©.Lakshmanram^ aged abcmt 57 years^ ft/b» Ghiamnadand^ P.S. & Saho Sonhat, Bistt. Koria(03) F, .&ESPONDENTS '/^' ~\t ^ w <^/ ^' cf. <l'..<r ^ VERSUS t l. M/s S^eeial Blast Private Limited ^ R^©p^Ajay Kuinar CShoudhari^ Nathaai Building, Slaastri Ohowk, Raipur (S.G.), 2. The Oriental Insuranae Ctompany X.ited, ^ Mandal Karyalaya No»2 Shyam Market Life Insu.ranoe Marg^ B>andri^ Raipur (a«Q,)« ^' APPEAL UNDEfi SESSXON 173 OP MGTOR VEHIGLE AG"F 1988« ^. "^ <^.£:v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A.No. 776 of 2004 AppeUant Shobharaim Versus Respondents M/s Special Blast Private Limited & another APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Honl3le Shri I. M. Quddu.si & Honyble ShriJustice N. K. Aganval, JJ \..'^ Ms Meeaa Shastri, Advocate for the appeUant. Shii Gautain Khetrapal, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri Ajay Mishra, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. ORDER(Qral) ( Passed on tliis 28th day ofSeptember, 2010) Per I. M. Quddusi^ J. Heard. This appeal arises from the awai'd dated 23.4.2004, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribiinal, Baikunthpur, District - Koria in Claim Case No.39/2002. The, brieffacts, ia nutsheU, are that on 9.3.2002 at about 11 a.m. Shivnath @ Raju (son of the appeUant), by driviag the vehicle ~ Truck, bearing registration No. M.P. 20-C/9984, was goiag from Bilaspur to Baikuuthpur. At that time, ahead village Mansukh, on a daugerous turmng the truck became out of control and feU iu the deep field. As a result of that accident Sliivnatli @ Rajii i,e. driver of the velucle, died. The appellant, being father of the deceased had filed a claioi case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 23,14, OOO/- undervaiious heads. By the impugned award the claiia of the appellaut has been rejected by the M.A.C.T. holding that the clami petition was not mamtainable as the accide.nt was caused due to negligence of the deceased hiBisetf, who was driving the vehicle, which was iuvolved ia the accident. ^ v ^ 8. We have heai'd leai'ned counsel appeadng for the pailies aad perused the lower Court recoi-d. It is apparent that the claisii petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the M.A.C.T. has not considered the question of grant of coinpensation uuder Section 140(4) oftheAct, 1988. Learued counsel appearmg for the appellant submits that the appellaiit inay be peiinitted to convert the claioi petition under Section 163 (A) of the Act, 1988 for award of no fault Uability conipensation. In view of the above, we allow this appeal ia part, set aside the impugned awai'd dated 23.4.2004 aad remit the matter to the M.A.C.T. concertied to allow the claioiant/appeUaiit to inake appropriate aiaendinent in the clahn petition and in turn the M.A.C.T. shall consider and decide the same afresh, after providing opportunity to the parties to adduce additioual evidence, tfany. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. No order as to costs. The Registry is directed to send back the papers, requisitioned frora the Tribunal, forthwith. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge Thalcur