",Kvess-";p;ssssx <<) "> \^ (S? IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGAHH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL N0. .> <-- livision Bead^ t j/200i APPELLANT VERSEJS RESPONDENTS ^ON-CLAIMANTS ^ r^ A<-^y ^^ \1'~f^ .••* ^^w ^y i%;^ <yf~'.^ ^' .<(•' > Ayodhya Prasad Dubey son of Loknat Dubey, aged about 55 years, R/o» Ravishankar Shukla Nagar, Aamanaka near to Durga Mandir, l<ard No. 54, Raipur, Oistrict Raipur (c.s.)« Gt.AIMANT 1) Lokesb Chandrakar son of '' Girija Chanflraka, aged about 20 years, R/o« Lalwani Gali, near sus Stand, Mahasaraund ^ ,#^»/ ^ Q-.2) BajaJ Allianz General Insurance Company I»td. First Floor Chauhan eomplex, near Rajkumar collsge, LML showroora Raipur (C.O.). ..rf^- MISC. APPEM, UMOER SECTXON f73 OF MOTOtEB VEHICLE ACT. MISC._,APPEALVALUED AT gs. 4.20.000/-. INffi.i »)>„,,;; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.No.450/2005 Ayodhya Prasad Dubey APPELLANT Versus RESPONDENTS Lokesh Chandrakar another and D^:- HON'BLE SHRI I.M. QUDDUSL& HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL. JJ PRESENT:- Shri M.K. Bhaduri, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (25-10-2010) Per I.M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/clairaant against the award dated 8-2-2005 passed by IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund in Claim Case No. 97/2004. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 24-6-2004, at about 3.45 p.m. while Yamuna Bai (since deceased) was going on feet, the respondent No. 1 driving Yamaha motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-06-B-0349 in a rash and negligent manner dashed her as a result of which, she sustained grievous injury on head and died. The claimant filed claim petition claiming Rs. 4,20,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased in the motor accident. 3. Learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appellant is not dependent upon the deceased and as such he was not entitled to get any amount of compensation. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal. ® 5. The appellant/claimant has stated in claim petition that the deceased was his real elder brother's wife and has no other legal heir except the claimant. 6. Under Section 15 ofthe Hindu Succession Act, it has been provided that:- (1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,- (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father; (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and (e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother. 7. Since it was alleged that the clainiant was real younger brother of husband of Che deceased and there was no other legal heirs of her, his case comes to the category (b) of Section 15(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. However in para 8 of the statement given by the claimant before the Tribunal, it has been mentioned that the last rights of the deceased were performed by one Jhumuk Lal Dubey in the capacity of her devar (younger brother of husband). 8. In view of above statement, it is a matter of consideration that how could it be said that the appellant/claimant was the sole legal heir of the deceased. 9. In Section 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it has been provided that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made where the death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representg.tives of the deceased. Therefore, it is also a matter of consideration whether the claimant was a legal representative of the deceased or not. Under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is provided that on i^iE 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. receipt of an application for compensation made under Section 166, the Clauns Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim. Therefore, it is the duty of the claims Tribunal to conduct an inquiry into the above matter. Needless to mention that even if the legal representative of the deceased died as a result of motor accident, is not dependent upon the deceased, he would be entitled to get compensation at least to the extent of no fault, as provided under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, it was not proper on the part of the Tribunal to dismiss the claim petition without holding an inquiry. Therefore, due to the above facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the matter requires reconsideration at the end of fhe Tribunal in the light of the observations made above. Therefore, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned award dated 8-2-2005 and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for decision afresh on merit in the light ofthe observations made above. The Claim petition shall be restored to its original number and after giving opportunity to adduce evidence or to make amendment in the pleading by the parties, the claim petition shall be decided afresh as early as possible preferably within a period sbc months from the date of receipt of record of the Tribunal. Record of the _Tribunal be sent back without any further delay. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal along-with copy ofthis order on 23-11-2010. Sd/- 1-M.Quddusi Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge