IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDiCATURE AT CHHATTISGARH M.A.NO. -3^9- /2006 APPELJLANTS RESPOINDENTS ? 1] Smt. Mangwariti Ased 43 years, W/o. Sagram, R/6. Vuiage Kavra, Tahsii Kondagaon; District - Bastar (CG) Sagram Markam, S/6. Late Budhu, Aged aDOuf 45 years, R/6. Viiiage Kavra, Tahsit - KOndagaOn, District - Basfar(CG) VERSUS t] Jeevan Vaidya (Dnver) S/6. Josendra Vaidya, Aged about 34 years, R/'o. Vitlage Bheeragaon, Tahsii Kondagaon, District- Bastar(CG) ^ ^Nand Kishore Jain, Aged abouf 43 years; S/6. Late Sampattal Jain; R/o. Vikas Nagar, Kondagaon, District Bastar (CGi jjCy The Onenfat tnsurance Company, ^ Brancn jagdaiDur, Through: iK Branch Manager, Brarich jagdaiDur main Road, JagdalDur, Distnct - Basfar (CG) ^•" APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF VEHICLE ACT v,..^"" Ciafm in aDpeat vatued a£Rs. 7,55,000/'- h HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT RESPONDENTS M.A. No. 387/2006 Smt. Mangwanti and another Versus Jeevan Vaidya and others DB:- HON»BLESHRI I.M. QUDDUSI & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, JJ PRESENT:- Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate, for appellants. Shri Subhash Yadav, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2. Shri Raj Awasthi, Advocate, for the respondent No. 3. ORAL ORDER (25-11-2010) Per I.M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants against the award dated 28-1-2006 passed by the IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Claim Case No. 66/2004. 2. Facts of the case in brief as per the claimants are that on 19-10-2002, the respondent No. 1/driver of Mini Bus bearing registration No. MP 23 J/0593 crushed a goat as a result ofwhich, the goat died. He escaped with bus from the spot. On 20-10-2002, at about 10 a.m. deceased Deendayal, Lakhidhar, Somaru, Mehattar, Ganesh, Ratiram Sahu and other villagers were waiting for the said bus and when the said bus reached there, they demanded compensation for the goat. The driver of the bus taken the bus to Kondagaon by saying that on return he will pay the amount. On the same day, at about 7.00 when the driver against tried to take the bus, the above persons stopped the bus and demanded compensation. The driver started running the bus all of a sudden, as a result of which Deendayal received injuries, as a result of which, he died due to the injuries received in the accident. The claimants being legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition mm' 8. s under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming Rs. 7,55,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased. Learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition vide impugned award on the ground that it is not proved that the deceased died due to dash by the bus. We have perused the record of the Tribunal as also the impugned award. There is sole eyewitness of the accident, who had seen the accident in question i.e. Claimant's witness No. 2 namely - Tiharu Ram son of KacharuRam, a kirana merchant. He has stated about the accident that the deceased died due to the accident committed by the driver of the vehicle. He stated that they were demanding amount of compensation for the death of goat and when the driver of the bus tried to run the bus, the deceased ascended on the bonut of the bus and fell down. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it was not the fault of the driver of the bus and the act of the deceased was wrong who himself ascendedover the bonut and fell down and died due to the injuries sustained. In view of the above, no case for interference in the finding of the Tribunal is made out. However, the claimants shall be entitled for Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for no fault under Section 140(4 ) of the Act and the Tribunal has erred in directing the claimants to refund Rs. 50,000/- awarded to them for no fault, to the respondents. Therefore, the appeal is allowed to the extent that the claimants are entitled to get to 50,000/- as compensation for no fault and they are not required to refund the above amount to the Insurance Company. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal