IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH APPELLANT CLAIMANT AT BILASPUR M.A.fC.) No....80,3.../2009 Bai W/o Late Paras SSS <t SPONDENTS ^/^ r^/s^/ rfi^ ^Mf ^s)W y;f Nishad Aged about 50 years, R/o Shankar Nagar Simga, Police Station & Tahsil Siraga, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS s Dinu @ Dinesh Patkar S/o Holuram. Patkar aged about 30 years, R/o Shankar Nagar Simga, Police Station 85 Tahsil Simga, District Raipur (C.G.) (Driver of Alleged vehicle No. C.G.04E- 0158) y^ Abdul Rafik S/o Abdul Gafur Aged about 35 years, R/o In front of Dr. Rijavi Gali Moudhapara Raipur (C.G.) (Owner of Alleged vehicle No. C.G.04E-0158) The National Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Office, Mobin Mahal Second Floor G.E.Road, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 's-^" MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988. 3). 1.' Compensation Claimed Rs. 8,26,500/ - 2 . Compensation Awarded Rs. 5^,000/-with 6% Int 3. Compensation in appeal Rs. 7,^6,000/-withl2% Int B i ^ ^ m<ai coimT or CHH&TTISGARH AT BIL^JPUR M.A.fC? N0.802 OF 2<M>9 APPEIAANTS '^'1*^3 •»iii»<'kt4'^>1k RJ^PONDENTS Deoki Bai aad others Versus Dmu @ Dmesli Patkar atid others. APPELLANT (Claiiaaatt E.A.iC»N0. 803 OP 2009 Budhiva Bai RESPONDENTS Versas Dinu others. Diiiesh Patkar aiid APPEALS UNDBR SBCTION 173 OF THB ISlKiTOR VEHICLES ACT (Pinirion Bench: Hon'ble Shri I.M. Ouddusl & Hoa'ble Sfari G. aUahaiuddia. JJ.} present s Shri Anil Pandey, counsel for (tie appellants (m both theappeals). Sl-ii-i Keshav Dewangaii, counsel for fhe respondent No.a/cross-Qbjector. Shri Goutam Kheti'apal, counsel for respoudent No.3. ORAL ORDBR (Passed oa 12th day ofSeptember, 201 y Per I.M. Quddusi. J. The appeals M.A.(C) Nos.802/2009 and 803/2009 are being disposed ofby tl-us couunon order as fhey ai'ise out the same accident occurred on 25-05-2007 by the ofi'endtaj vehicle Miaibus. 2. The above mentioned appeals have been filed by the appeUants/cialmants against the impi^iied award datal 06- 02-2009 passed in daim Case Nc«. 54/2007 and 55/W07 respeetively by the Second Addltlonal Motor Accidenit Claims .^' .<? i? ^ S^S>. 't\ ff^l 'S 8 <%^. '^53^ '•'...•:,. ^'l^jS' "•^Wss-af"' Tribunal, Balouda Bazar (for short the Clalms Tribuiial^ for enhancement of the compensation. 3. Brief facts of tlie cases are as per version projected by fhe claimants who ai'e iTjeirs aiid legal i-epresentatives of ftTB deceased Paras Nisliad and Solian Nishad tliat oa 25-05- 2007 were feturiiuig to theii' houses from KaiilcaBpara, Slmga after attendmg tlie meeting of theu' couunmilty, they were dashed by offending vehicte (Minibus) beai-ing reglsti-ation No. C.G. 04-E/0158 wliich was driwen rashly aiid iiegllgently by its driver respondent No.l - Dinu @ Dliiesh Patkar. The said ve^de (Miiiibus) was owned by respondent No. 2 - Abdul RaOlc and on tlie date of incident, the same was uism-ed wifh 1'espondent No.3 - Natloiial Insurance Company Liuuted. On account of the accident, both Paras Nishad and Sohan Nisliad sustaliied grlewoi-is injurles aiid died on the spot. Report of the aceident was A lodged at PoUce Statlon Simga on wliich aiT offence uiider Sectlon 304-A of IPC was registered ^aiast respoadent No. 1. After completion of InvestigaUon, the appeHaats flled chai^e-sheet under Sectlon 173 of the Gr.P.C. agalii^; respondent No. 1 for fhe sead offence. 4. Deceased Paras Nisliad and Sohani NMiad were the only bread eai-ners of theu- famUies. On accoiuit of fheir untknely death, their lcgal representatlves suffered toss of dependency for which separate clalm petitions were filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short *the Acf) seekiiig compeiisatlon ofRs.8,26,500/- vide Claim Case Nos. 54/2007 and Rs. 17,28,000/-, 55/2007 respeetively. 5. Tlie leai'ned Claims Tribunal after affoifding opportunity of hearuig to (he partles had passed fhe impugned awai'd dated 06-02-2009 wbei-eby and whereunder fhe Insiirance Company lias been exonerated and a compeiisation of onfy Rs.50,000/- each which fc awardable under 'no fault UabUity' as per the provteion of jai.I^mj aonppra 'sSuipBaid aip puanre 0^ AinmiJOKJdo papTAOjd aq KCT.IS ssr^red aqi fBq^ uortusro 01 sssipasN •6 •qsa.ge uoTSTosp JQJ leunquj, atp 0} 5{OBq 8.T811BOT SV^ 1TTO3J pUB 660B-SO-90 P3WP pJBMB pai.TgndOTT sq} apTse ias pire ijed UT siesdd^ asaiR AOIIB SA 'ajojATaqj, •{Bunqijj, stp jo pua sq^ ys uor(Bj3pjsuooaj ajmba,T sjanraui Wty 1BIR UOTOTdo 8111 JO are 9A 'sAoqa ai-o jo '»9{A ui 'g ^'•••••••uon.BSuacTrooo isnf, sq^ SS9SSB ireo IT IBT.R os iroRTSod -psjjoo pire an>n ai-p. i.ire'i.iaosB 01 aioj aAnoiB rre 93{Kt aiojsjaqi ppioqs leunquj, aqj, •(tTOTigsusdrooo isnl; aqi gimiTroja^ap x>j (Wre[3 arp oiui Aimbua ire PIOT^), 01 p3jrnbM si oqA ipnn jo ja'sisas ptre jajoidxs SATIOB tre SB inq '^rns {IATO ^ UT s^ andron iB.nnau B s^ uoi^oimj "(OLT ssop iBunqTJj, ax^ iwn luapTAa fs safevci ^ov aqijo 691 P"e 89T suorpss"""""""""""""""",, :japim sra paionb ST qoniA uoTSpap sii jo 11 ^jecf irr ppq s^i{ <a*Tvos tei) otoz TI! paziodai f-iatfyiua vy jmwny Bnfy 'sa. jmusaafSay ]a .Kf\-\fmi ain in t.inoo ams.idng 31^ aiq^noH •/, •sas^o tire^suT aip UT suop uaaq iou seq STHBS aip inq sitreroreio ar[i 0} papjBMB aq 01 uoT^esusdnioo ISTif girroraijaiap joj qinji aip 8ii]T.iiK)jaosra jo asocT.n-id aqi JQJ Ajmbus jadojd v lanpuoo 01 pimoq -^np S^A ^GunqTJj, smreio aip 'SUOTSTAOJ(J asaip jad sy •1766! 'sainy s3[OTipA joioyi 910 jo geg ap-ia prre iov siff jo 691 ptre 891 SUOBOSS jspu'n fs uodn psuTofua -^np aip pa8jBqosTp ^ou seq punqTJj, smreK) attt VevW Jsap ST IT 'PJBMB paugndniT sqi s^ HSA SB iBimquj, erotBtO atR jo spjooai aip jo lesnjsd TOO.TJ '9 •uon^susdOToa jo lunotcre jo ^ueTOaoireipja JQJ sii:rexmBp 81(1 -'Cq paig iisaq aAwi sieaddc iireisur aip 'p-reAra paugndOTi aip Aq p3A3Tj38B Surag -p®qsiNireqog pire peqsiN sejsd pas^aogp aip jo 89jffii^uas8jdai i88a[ pcre sjraq arp. 01 'ioy 9tp jo Ols'T uoTiosg ^£"'^ 1 ^ evidence, flle dociunents or get the documents verlfled etc., on fhe basis of fhe pleadlngs already on i-ecord. Therealter, tlie enquiry, if necessaiy, ^iall be conducted by flie Giaims Tribunal as provided m Sections 168 & 169 offl-ie Act, 1988 and Rule 226 of flie C.G. Motor Vehlcle Rules, 1994. The recoi-d of flie Criminal Case if necessary shall be siimmoiied arid eye witnesses tf aiiy, sliaU also be summoned. 10. Consequenfly, cross-appeals filed ly respondent No.2 have become infi'uctuous and dlsmlssed accoi'ditigly. 11. The amount already deposited by ttie Insm'ance Company sliall reinain in deposit tIU flie decision afl'esh 1s taken by Uie Clakas Trlbunal. 12. The parties shall appear before tlie Claims Trlbunal on 12-10-2011. Rccoid of thc Claims Tribuual sliall bc scnl back wlthout further delay, 13. No order as to costs. SA'- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge