IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR (C.G.) MISC. APPEAL fCV N0. HU OF 2011 OMsionBwn^ AF^ELLANT ^, N01M-APPLICANTS: r-— ^ / !7 / ^/y/^ ^//^ Bise Lal, S/o Bhaiyaram Sahu, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Adhari Nawagaon, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS * Khedu Ram, S/o Gokul Ram Dhruv, aged about 21 years, R/o Village Chhuhi, 4Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) 2. Girdhar Ram Sahu, S/o Devram Sahu, R/o Village Silouti, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ^ Branch Mangaer, United India Insurance Company Limited, Krishna Complex, First Floor, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Claimed before Tribunal : Rs. 17,50,000/- Amountawarded by thelearned Tribunal : Claimed dismj^sed . Claimed in this Memo ofAppeal : Rs. 17,50,000/- MISCELLANEOUSAPPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT. 1988 \°^ HIGHCOURTOFGHHATTiSGARHATBiLASPUR DlVISIONBENCH:HON*BLEMR.i.M.QUDDUSS& HON'BLEM^G.MINHAJUDDIN.JJ. Appellant Non-aDDlicants M.A.fdNo. 421/2011 Biselai Vs Khedu Ram and others Present: A4r. PP Sahy,counsejfortheappellant. TVIr. Dashrath Gupta, counset for non-applicant No.S/insurarice company. >RDER{Ordil (8th August, 2011) Peri.M.Quddusi.J: This appeal has been filed by the appseliant under Sectton 173 of the Motor Vehides Act, 1988 against award of the Chief IVtotor Acciclent Claims Tribunai, Dhamtari (in short "the tribunal"), dated 9th March, 2011 passed in CJaJm GaseNo. 109/201 0, dismissjng the claim petition filed under Sectjon 163A of the Motor Vehides Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988") as not maintainable. 02. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.9.2009 the appeJlanf/Glaimant along with his brother-in-law was going on motorcycle bearing No. CG 05-B/5088 from Vilfage : Dhabha to his homte via Salhebhat with a moderate speed. As soon as he reached near Futhamuda ppol of Vtllage : Salhebhat,respondent No.l/tractor driver by drjving the tractor rashly and negjjgentiy dashed the motorcyde of the ciaimant, as a result, he feii down from the motorcyoie and sustained injuries over his waist, ribsjeft hand,leg, hip and grievous injuries over other parts of the body. He aiso sustained •fracture. Report of the acddent was iodged by the eyewitnesses in Poiice Station : Arjuni whereupon Cr.No.220/09 was registered against respondent No.1 forthe offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338of the JPC. After completion of investigation, Gharge sheet was fiied against him in the Court of Judidal iVlagistrate First Ciass, Dhamtari. /f^ |%';S^| ;?fe,<iw^: 2. o^ vp 03. Immediatejy after the accident, the jnjured/ciaimantwasadmitted in Christian Hospjfal; Dhamtari by the eyewitnesses of the accident where he remained from the date of accident till 15.10.2009. During this period, he was aiso referred to Rajpur for treatment. According to Dr. AmitAgrawai.the jnjured was operated upon and treated, even then he could nqt recover from the injuries and has become permanent di'sabled on account ofthe jnjuries caused to-him in the accident. 04. At the time of accident, the injured/ctaimant was working as driver and earnjng Rs.5000/- per month. He also used to get Rs.150/- as daily aiiowance while going out of station. However, on account of tbe unfortunate accident,the jnjured/claimant has been deprived of his income. Therefore, he fited a claim pefition.under Section 163A ofthe Act, 1988 fora total compensation of Rs.17,50,000/- under various heads. 05.' However, Searned Tribunal, after hearing counsel for the respectjve parties, on close scrutiny pf the evidence led by the parties, by the impugned award djsmjssedthe claim petitionofthe claimant on the ground that it is not maintainable since the annual incbme of the claimant/inj'ured is above Rs.40,000/-. 06. Heard iearned counsel for the parties, perused the LCR as also the impugned award, 07. The annuai income shown in the claim petltion by the claimant was Rs.48,000/- and therefore, it was more than the limit of income mentioned in Schedule - II j.e. Rs.40.000/- for maintaining a daim petitjon under Sectt'on 163A of the Act, 1988. Hence, in our opinion, the TFibunaJ has rightly held that the cjaim petition under Sectjon 163A of the Act, 1988 was not maintainabie. However, if the claimants have filed a claim petition, whfch was not maintainable, they cannot be remediless. 08. In the case of De@pa/ Girishbhal Soni and other Vs. United fndia ItiswanceCo. Ltd,Bamda, reported in (2004)5 SCC 3B§,three •i Judges Bench of the Hon'bie Supreme Court issued direction that the claims Tribunals shall proceed'to determine the daim petitions fijed 'under Section 166 ofthe Act. 1988 in accordance with law. •'^:... M^''%: lj'&..:^:r&l 1 •^^••'t I: :i,::~:4;y ,.^r ^ 09. In the matter of Ningamma and another Vs. United India fnswance Co. Ltd. reported in (2009) 13 SCC710, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that Section 166 ofthe Act, 1988 deais with just compensation and even jf in pleadings no specific cSaim was made under Section 166, a party should not be deprived of gettjng just compensation in case it can make out a case under any provisions of law. The Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial and welfare legisiation. in fact, the Court is duty-bound and entitied to award "just compensation" jrrespective ofthe fact whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the claimant or not. 1,0. In view of the above, in our opinion, the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Tribunai. Therefore, we allow this appeal jn part, set aside the jmpugned award and remit the matter back totheciajms Tribunal to dedde the case afresh after giving opportunity to the partles to amend the pleadings and convert the cjaim petition under Section 166 ofthe Acf, 1988^or any other provisions of lawavailabietothem. ^- 11. Needless to mention that the parties shall also be aifowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence, file documents and get the documents verifiedetc. and thereafter, fresh findingsshali be given by the Tribunal and awardshaJJ be passed afresh. The Tribunal shali also conduct an enquiry into the clajm for determining the just compensation. 12. Parties shallappear before the Tribunal on 14th September, 201 1. 13. LCR shad be sent back to the Tribunal without further delay. 14. No order as to costs. 15. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge f »• ^