IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC.APPEAL N0. OF 2003 ,_?)j^^rrH i^jyiii APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS Smt. Shakunbai, W/o Late Shri Ramashankar Shukla, Aged about 27 years. Ku. Varsha, D/o Late Shri Ramashankar Shukla, Aged about 4 years,(Minor Through Natural Guardian Smt.Shakunbai) The above named appellants are resident of Village-Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, (C.G.). V E R S U S 1 RESPONDENT_S NON-APPLICANTS Shri Sukdev Singh, S/o Shri Bachchan, M.P. Nathan Roadwaways, Near Stadium, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, (C.G.). Limited, Branch Officer Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, (C.G.). y *»' ...••^1 ?.?<;"!,!£ll :^^^'?' 2. s^-xhe National Insurance Com|pany ^^ss^ 3. Smt. Koushilya Bai widow of Late Shri Nutan Prasad Shukla, ^Aged about 61 years, Resident of ViIlage-Rajamanpuri., Tahsil SB District Rajnandgaon, (C.G.). <^?^ [•T .^••' A«' MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 198 8 <; 1.. i^.. 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'bleShri I.M. Quddusi, J. & Hon'bleShri Prashant Kumar M.'shrs, J. APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS I.A.No. 1047 of 2003 Smt. Shakunbai and another. Versus Shri Sukdev Singh and others. Shri Rajesh Pandey, counset for the appellants. Shri Srikumar Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Anand Gupta, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri B.P. Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER {27/04,<2011) Following oral order of the Court was passed by M. Quddusi. J. This appeal hasbeen filed against the impugned award dated 24/09/2003 of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 14/2000 dismissing the claim petition filed under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehlcles Act. (2) Brief facts of the case, as per the version of claimants, are that deceased Ramashankar Shukla was employed by non-applicant No.1 Sukdev Singh for driving the truck No. M.O.T. 9579 on a monthly salary of Rs.3000/- along with allowances of Rs.20(»/-.On 22/04/2CX)0 at about 8.30 a.m. when deceased Ramashankar Shukla was returning from Banglore to Rajnandgaon through Multai after untoading the goods then at Mohighat turning the truck turned turtle and fell in to valley and Ramashankar Shukla died in the said accident. Claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.31 ,25.000/-. (3) At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that under the wrong advice the claim petition under .'\ ^i '^ .^•^ v'-a1?'1^'"' 2 ^ ^\T Section 1 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed. In fact, the claimants want to file claim petition before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation as the deceased was an employee of respondent No.1 . (4) In view of the above we are also of the opinion that the claimants should not be deprived of getting the genuine and legitimateclaim. We allow this appeal and oral prayer of learned counsel for the appellants and set-aside the impugned award with liberty to file a fresh claim petition before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation. If any, such claim is filed, the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation will tak®into consideration the fact that the claimants under the wrong advice filed the claim petition in questlon on 02/08/2000 which was dismissed on 24/09/2003. Thereafter, the instant appeal was filed on 31/10/2003 which has been allowed in part today without going into the merits of the case one way or other. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^•:.'.'^