COURTFEES EXESfiPTED BY NOTtFICATION N0.9S6C1/D-2870/XXI; B/C.G./05 AS 3PECIFIED IMSCHEDULE i&UOFTH^COURTFEESACT 1870. 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) M.A. (C) N0. ......Z>...a...-:^:./2009 APPELLANT (DEFENDANT) v^'" ' „ ®yl" RESPONDENTS (RLAIMANT) State of Chhattisgarh Through the Chief Secretary, Govemment of Chhatfisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG.) VERSUS ^L Smt. Chintamani, Aged about 38 years, Wd/o Mahesh Baghel, t3- Ku. Tara Baghel, D/o. Late Mahesh Baghel, Aged about 20 years, Tulsi Ram Baghel, S/o Late Mahesh Baghel, Aged about 18 years, Ku. Likeshwari Bagfael, D/o Mabesh Baghel, Aged about 13 years, 5. Khileshwar Baghel, S/o Late Mahesh Baghel, Aged about 09 years. (For respondent no. 4 and 5 natual guardian mother Sint. Chintamani Baghel). AU R/o D/3, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Tahsil and Distrift Raipur. MISCELLANEQUSAKPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VBHICLE ACT, 1988. ••^" ..-"'.. "'•^ '•. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI & HON'BLE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. Appellant DeTendant Respondents Claimant M.A. M No. 872/2009 State of Chhattisgarh Vs Smt. Chintamani and others M.A. rcl No. 692/10 Appellants Non-Applicants No. 110 3 Respondents Applicants No. 1 to 5 Vs Chhattisgarh State Garage Mantralaya and others. Smt. Om Kumari Sahu and others Present: Mr. Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate General for the State/appeltants. Mr. Vivek Verma, counsel for respondents in MAC No.872/09. Mr. Satyendra Sahu, counsel for respondents in MAC No.692/10. ORDER (Oral» (13th October, 2011) Per I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Since these two appeals arise out of the same accident, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These appeals have been filed by the State and are directed against the impugned awards dated 26.12.2008 & 15.3.2010 passed in Claim Cases No.52/08 & 171/09 respectively by the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (in short "the Tribunal"). 3. Cross-objection has also been filed by respondents No. 1 to 5 in MACNo.692/10. ^^ fv 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.8.2007 Mahesh Baghel was going to his Vidhan Sabha constituency Keshkal for inspection in his official vehicle Ambassador bearing registration No. CG-02/2781 along with his friends. At that time, at about 8.40 pm, the driver of the said Ambassador by driving the vehicle in a rash and n^llgent manner, turned it turtle near Mohan Dhaba at Nationat Highway No.43, as a result of which the car caught flre and was centrally locked, on account of which the persons inside the .car could not come out and were burned to death inside the car itself on the spot. The driver ofthe vehicle also died on the spot. 5. At the time of accident, deceased Mahesh Baghel was a heatthy man of 46 years. He being the MLA of Keshkal Vidhan Sabha constituency and Parliamentary Secretary was getting Rs.20,00)/- per month. Therefore, the claimants, who are widow and children of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section }66 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988") for a totat compensation of Rs.67,50,000/- against the death of Mahesh Baghel under various heads. 6. One Jhumuk Lal Sahu, who, at the relevant time, was working as Incharge Agriculture Development Officer in District-Bastar in the Agriculture Department, Block Headquarters-Vishrampuri, was also traveling in the said Ambassador car and died due to the unfortunate accident. Therefore, his widow, children and father being his legal heirs filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 for a total compensation of Rs.57,84,OX)/- against the , death of Jhumuk Lal under various heads. 7. However, leamed Tribunal, after close scrutiny of the evidence available on record, after hearing leamed counsel for the (Kirties, tay the impugned award dated 26.12.2008 awarded a total compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- in favour of claimants/legal heirs of deceased Mahesh Baghel, and by the impugned award dated 15.3.2010 awarded a total compensation of Rs.14,60,000/- in favour of claimants/legal heirs of deceased Jhumuk Lal, fastening the liability upon the appellants/State. ^ fv 8. Heard learned (^unsel for the parties, pemsed the lower court record (LCR) as well as the impugned award. 9. In MAC No.872/09, leamed Dy. Advocate General Shri Vinay Harit, has raised the only contention regarding quantum. Though the deceased was an MLA for the time being, whose tenure was temporary, but his income was treated as permanent income by the Tribunal, which had occurred in the capacity of being an MLA as well as Pariiamentary Secretary. 10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the matter r^uires reconsideration for determination of average income of the deceased, taking into consideration his past income also. 11.With regard to MAC No.692/10, Shri Vinay Harit, learned Dy. Advocate General, has raised the contention that deceased Jhumuk Lal Sahu was an unauthorized occupant in the vehicle. However, we do not agree with the same as once the seat was occupied by deceased Jhumuk Lal in the vehicle, which was altotted to the MLA, who was also sitting inside the vehicle and in Ws presence deceased Jhumuk Lal occupied the seat, it cannot be said that occupation of the deceased was without consent of the pereon i.e. the MLA, to whom the vehicle was allotted. Therefore, It is held that deceased Jhumuk Lal Sahu was not an unauthorized occufant of the vehicle. 12.However, Shri Harit has submitted that an ex-gratia payment of Rs.25,000/- was made to the deceased due to the accident in question as well as one of the family members of the deceased has been granted compassionate appointment. But all these facts have not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while deciding the claim petition. Therefore, the case of the claimants is also liable to be reconsidered by the claims Tribunal, insofar as it relates to quantum part only. 13. Therefore, we allow both the appeals in part, set aside the quantum part of the impugned awards and remtt the matter back to ,the Tribunal to re-assess the quantum, in the light of obse«!'^itions (f ^ made above, so that the appellants may make payment of the same. 14.The amount which has already been deposited pursuant to the impugned awards, shatl be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank for a period of one year and shall be subject to the decision to be taken afresh by the Tribunal. Needless to mention that the parties shatt atso be allowed to amend the pleadings, adduce further evidence, file documents and get the documents verified etc. and thereafter, fresh findings shall be given by the Tribunal and award shall be passed afresh. 15.Since the matter has been remitted back to the Tribunal, the cross- objection has become infructuous. 16. LCR shall be sent back to the Tribunal without further detay. 17. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 28 November, 2011. 18.No order as to costs. 19. Certifled copy as per rules. SA'- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge