'WH 1. IN SHE HIGH COOST OF TO6lCaT®E,&®.BII.AgP'OR •:( C. S. ) H.A. Ne. •r^o{? / 2004. &PEEEL&BTS ^^ ^ ^(>~T .^>- ^^^ T-**~~ ^' ^"'y <?l^"^' ^^ v^-^ (S' yf RESP0.BDEHTS ^ :I. srza BAH S/p'late 'HaaKe®- -/'':. ' ..' : . " ' :; ' . '•: : ;' &am, Aged alastit, 45 •years. 2. Sita Ram, S/o late i&ateoo. aani. Aged abeiiit SO years. 3. Abbi Ram, S/o Eate Banteeo. Ram,;Aged aboat 38 years. &11 resiaea'fe'of village - Sidesar, ;Tahsil and Bist. Kanfer CC.S.}. ^ 2. 3,.. , VER'S ir.g. ; ": : .. S . S&HX&S^: 8AB ,, S/oS.Shfk- -aehalaHt^ :Agee3 'afasat 44- years, S/o 'Vijayanagram, P.S. Vidhyaaharnagra®.,,,- -Dist. iKFishna ( &.P.) . 'yeBkatestewa'r aao, S/o- y • ' Ks'sa:iya:, &^eS al3wxb^36- . ':.:': | '•. Years,1 &/o VidteygdharpaFaHi— p.a.'Wid'byaattarpiaFaia, Bist.. ^:ErisI»Ba';( A.P.) •1 • .. e. 8ew^:iaaia •;Iasal-aBee-:' ^Qtapaay EiinxCea,' Segl.Qnsl- ©ff±Ce,::'a,8gi:oBar,.fiEtBaigeE,^ P:^>wer Hpgse •.''S6i.a;aj.,.:l^i.st;.::' Bqrg.:' {j•^e-.S,. ..)1:.:.;: •i :;;,:': ^'..: ?^,,; •• .XslsaiBg::;^f.fice-.^!si®"!^»'-i. ^Iaa^a; ^ InsiaraiiiGe;]^|j;:|elj3;n^|S •I 8"7%Mala^'eigia'.^^ij|^C|i^iji.JjW ^ IIRillliB?S § </t> Ai^ ^atBital.: ':• :'": /:^',. :..^ :^A..a'y KEisfana; .Kiaiar 'S@BI ^S/o ES.am Pcasad . Soni . Sam^Prasad^S/©;:H0t;;£iaewa.^ a^^. ^^fi^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^ ;(i_e.>' Ansttiya^Bai t(/iei,^&aa:..pra'sad— •: seni. Q^S^ay '^rv ^.-^-. . d;} Vija^alaiORi. .D/te.:S.aiii prasad- •' :,Soni,:';^^^^ <l—9.)Raj3,axmi^B/G:'KaB):Prasad SQQX ...^ ^O^^y^:^,, .^g^; • £5::,,<3'al^i^s&: S/o'&am.KEFasad^SGinl. a^-:^^,''^^;:^ |_^) 'Ra;$Ea'ar B/@.KaB(^pcasad^^s'aai« ':^^V^;^^^fc^-;^£-^,':'.,;.:<;':.:'^ 1(^^) 'KI^sfaiiia1; Kanari.'p/o Raai'—.•1' .::.prasaaseai.^ Son'apT-.li.caQtSe.-^.'aad y <^-—vr~ miaor threagh. fat'her-,: Raa :pras^.^c^;C. 1,:;;,••;.._;..•• ^%I.^.;:Ees3.ii®Bt';of^aaapaliEa..' :^a:Bl.te!2-^:'^??©.:l). '.;::: : •;' ''!~;: 5.'':', •'i'Me'QrieEiEal lnsaraBce:.C&. 'Regioaal :MaBager»"fte;g3;(aaal- f ••••'••' ••" '••••• ;'. :• •"' r:.':"..'.'."; :.'- .-^'.^-:...••'•••'•• '•' •~:"^ • '". ©£fiee,'Matviya^Sagar,^Barg. ':^©i:st'.E)aE'3^issue!d^::'©^£ice- : .^ ^©lia,mfaFi't,'€;.S.);::.'.'':.-:,::.- 'f 1&p3E^:'l3!!IE :1SSe:S:3© :!,l^'©^9*BES^S©SQ&;SSB33SZ^ HtGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Division Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & Hon'ble Shri R.L. Jhanwar, JJ. Aopeilants MLsc^ADBeaLNo.1M8of_2Q04 Siya Ram & Others Versus Respondents S, Sanyasi Rao & Others (Appea! underSection 173'ofthe Mlotor Vshicles Act, 1988) Present:- Shri P. Dhurandhar and Shri Anand Kesharwani, counse! for the appeilants. Shri SucihirAgrawat, counsel forthe respondent No.3. Shri Ghanshyam Patel, counset for the respondentNo.5. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed onth'is 21 day ofjanuary, 2010) Per Satish K. Aanihotri, J. 1. The instant appeal anses from the award dated 22-9-2004 passed bv the Additiona! Motbr Accident Claims Tribunal, Batod, District Durg, in claim case No.65/2001, whereby the claim ofthe appellants herein was rejected. 2. The facts, in nutsheli, for adjudteation of the appeai, are that on 29-3-2001 at about 2'0 clock in the night the father of the appellants namely; Mankoo Ram (smce cfeceased) vvas coming to hls village Sidesar by jeep bearing registration No.MP-25-B-Q382 / ' ' '•.•.' .: near the viiiage Jagtara on the national highway, the truck bearing •fr • . • . --^. registration No,MP-26-W-6389 (forsAort "the offending mhicle"), ich was driven by the respondsnt No.1 herein in a rash and ^^^ s;'t3!.: negiigent manner dashed the jeep, as a resuit of which the deceased and some other persons died on the spot. 3. The claimants are children ofthe deceased ciaimed Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation on gccount of death ofthe deceased in the said accident. The respondents No.1 & 2 herein remained exparte.in aii ciaim cases, the respondent No.3 i.e. Insurance Company by fiijng written statement denied the aliegations made by the eiaimants. The said accident occurred due to rash and negiigent driving ofthe driverof theoffending vehicle. The driver oifthejeep has not driven the jeep in a rash and negtigent manner and, as such, the isarned Tribuna! has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petitiop flled against the insurance Company. 4. in respectof the claim case ofthe appeilants herein, the Isarned Tribunal by recording a finding that the appetSants are not entitled to any compensation as they have not entered into the case eartier and they entered oniy after death oftheir mother who hsd filedtheGlaimcase,dismissedtheclaimpetition. 5. Leamed counsel appearing for the appeitants would submit that the learned Tribunai erred in dismissing theapplication preferred by theclaimants. 6. Per contra, learnedsenior couhsel appearing for the Insurance Company, while supporting the impugned award woukl submit that the Tribunal has passed the award based on sound reasons andthe same deserves'to be upheld. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned award. ,lJ^aB2-..i.a! ». ^sy^,,;. rf" 3 f-y' '• 12. Learned Tribunal dismissed the claim case filed by the appeliants on the ground that they have not fi!ed the claim case independently, further the appellants have come as iegai representatives only on the death oftheir mother i.e. wife of the deceased nameiy; Mankoo Ram. The appeliants-have further not established the fact that they were dependants on the deceased. Admittedly, the claim case was filed by mother of the appellants under the provisionsof Section 166 of the Motor Vehides Act, 1988 {for short "the Act, 1988"). it appears that the learned Tribunal has not perused the provisions of Section 168 oftheAct, 1988 wherein deDendencv on the deceased is not the reauirement of filing a ciaim case. !t js cleariy written under sub-section (1) (c) & (d) of Section 166 of the Act, 1988that where death has resulted from the accident, by a!l or any of the legal representatives of the deceased or an injury or al! or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be, may filean application for compensation. There is no quarrel on the issue that the legal representatives of the mother (wife ofthe deceased Mankoo Ram^.who died durina pendency oftheclaim petition, are the tegal representatives of the deceased Mankoo Ram aiso. Dependency on the deceased is not necessary requirement for filing an application for^compensation under the provisions of Section 166 of the Act, 1988. Thus. the finding recorded by the tearned Trtbunal that the appellants have not estabiished the Tact they.were dependants on the deceased 1 is perverse and MVI^U deserves to be set aside. There is no limitation for fillng an application under the provisions of Section 166 of the Act, 1888. 13. For the reasons stated-hereinabove, the award dated 22-9-2004 passed in respectof the appeilants herein in claim case No.65/2001 is guashed and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal. The ciaimants will appear before the Tribunal on 25s'Fsbruary. 201Q. 14. Registry of this Court is directed to send alt the originai records of the case to the Tribunal forthwith. 15. In the resuit, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. _ ( .- --'^.' Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNMOTM Judge Sd/- R.L. JhaBwar Judge !:irrf(tF;'rp:" ir—'i