\ -. •^ ^r'T APPELLANT RESPONDENTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR(C.G.) E GsEe^ M.ACNo/<:JO /20C The Oriental Inslirance Company Limited Malviya Nagar, Durg (C.G.), Through Divisional Manager Durg(C.G-), (Policy issyed by the Oriental Insurance Compahy Limited, Kamthi Line, Branch Office Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS _ Sunil Kumar Mahobiya S/o Late Shri Nandkumar Mahobiya aged atbput 25 years ^ Gouri Devi Mahobiya W/o Late Shri Nandkumar Mahobiya aged about 55 Years (Both R/oVillage BaigatolaJahsil-Khairagarh, P.S. Gatapar, Distt. Rajnandgaon). 3. ^ Rukhmani Bai ^' D/o Late Shri Nand Kumar, aged about 34 Years R/o Village Baigatola Police Station Gatapar Tah. Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon. ^VIISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 ^.»waa««a», sg»<^»^^s^^^ laNNN%. HI6H COURT OF CMMATTISe^RM ^T KtUtSPUR &IVISION BBsiCH; HON'BLEMR. I.M.QUODUSI & HON'BLE MK.6ULAM MINHAJU&&IM. JJ. M.A.(c) N0.100 OF 2007 ^PPELL^NT RESPONDBsnrS The Opiental Insunmce Compcuiy Limited, Vcrsys Sunil Kumar ^ahobiya A others Prcscnt : Shri Manfesh Upadhyay, Adwcertefor theappettant. Shrj R.N. Jha, Advocate for the n6st)onG^ifs» QR<AL08e@i (20th June. 2011) PwI.M. Quddusi. J. 1. The appellant-Inairance Cbmpany has prefcrred this appeal c^aindt the award duted 28.9.2006 passed in Claim Gase No.18/06 by thc leamed Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh (C6) (for short the Claims Tribunal') atlowin9 claim application of the ctaimants. 2. Facts of the case, jn brief, are thart- the claBmants, who are widow A children of deceased Nandkumar, have filed a ctaim petitiwi before thc Claims Tribunal under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehictes Act. 1988 (for short the Act') seeking compensat-ion to the tune of Rs.12,75,000/- for the cteath of Nandkumar w(ho died in a road accident. 3. The tearned Claims Tribunal, after considcring isaies framttd b/ it.flnoiardtd a compeiisation of fta.3,57,000/- to the claimants alon9 with interefft- ^ 9% per annum from the date of the applicotion. 4, Learned counsel for the appelkait-Insvrance Compcuiy has submithBd Itiat Glaim applicotion filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Act before the Claims Tritxinal was not maintainable as the owiier ®fvehicte in question himself involved in the accident. 5. On the pther hand, leamed counsel for the respondents has support-ed the impugned award. 6. We have heard (eamed counsel for •(*»part-ias ard pwuscd the reeords of the tribunat as also the findings gilvenin the impuyiedawird. . 7. In the matter of Oricntal Inwirancc Company Ltd. Vs. Ro^ni Dcvi pqwrt-ed jn (2008) 5 SCC 736 the Hon'ble Supreme Cburt has held thort- ^ecj^w 163-Aof theMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 cwmctbescttdltohavemiyc^ticQMmtmi^gai'd to <OT accident wherein the wmer of the motor vehieie filmse is inwtwd It was further held that l^e UQibility mde^ Secti^m 163-A ^fiiw Act i^ e^ (M the owwr of the vehichs siw:e a persmi CQnmt be b^h, a ckttmeayt as aks^ a mcipimt, the heirs of the deceeased could not h<we maintitined a claimin terms ofSectiw 163-A oftfw Act 8. In the matter of Ningamma & wwthcr Vs. Vnited India Insunincc Com^flny Umitcd reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710 in Para-22 the Hon'ble Supreme Cburt- has held thus;- "22. In a case wheretn the victim died or where Iw was permanently disabled dw. to an wcident arising out of the aforesaid Htotor vehicie in that event the Uability to makc pcymeht of the compeniKifrjon is on the in^irance company or the owner, as the case may be es provjded under Section 163-A. But if it i< prowd that the driwr «theewncr of the motor vehicle/in that case the owner could not him^elf be a recipient of compensat-jon as the li<d>jlity to poy the sam®is on him. This proposition is absotut^ly clear on a readingi of Section t63-A of the MVA. Accordingly, the legal represeptatives of th< deceased who have stepj^ed into the $^es of the owier of the motcr whicte couSd not have ckxiined compcnsation under Secfion 163-A of the MVA/' 9. In view of above sett-led positiwi of law, we are of the opiniwi thart- the clainKmts. who are 10901 representotives of the deeeased who was owmer and driver of the motorcycle in questien, could not haw claimed compensatiCTi under Sect-ion 163-A of the Act and the Claims Tribunal, in»('eadof aitowing the claim flpplication, should have diamissed it as not maiirt'ainodbte. 10.In the resuh-, we allow this appeal and set cwide the impy9ned aimrd hohUng that claim petition vnder Section 163-A of fhe Act- was not m<Bntaind>le. However, it is made ctear that thls will not debar the ctaimants to tdie Qny other recourse of taw. 11. NcLordier^asto^osts. roshan/- Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddm Judge >^~ ^ /