/• .^:" HEGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR DSVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA,C.J, HOSSS'BLE SHR! SUNSL KU^AR S!NHA, J. Appellants CSaimants Respondents Non-appiicants Misc.ADpeai No. 939 of 2003 1 Dukaiaha Ram Sahoo, S/o Budhoo Sahoo aged aboutSS yrs 2 Bhantibai, W/o Dukaiaha Sahoo,Aged about 50 yrs Both are R/o Murao, PO Bangoli PS Kharora, Distt Raipur (CG) VERSUS Smt Beenadas, W/o Late Vinod Das R/o. Baba Garibdas Oli MHI, New Coiony, Mova, Raipur Rah & Distt - Raipur(CG) . The New iridia Insurance Co Ltd., Through Dlvisjonal Manager, The Nevv India Insurance Co Ltd., Jail Road, Ralpur (CG) } Mlsc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehides Act. 1988 Present : Shri SC Verma, counsel for the appeilants. Shri Q Aziz and Shri GVK Rao, counsei for respondent No.2. ORDER feth (20m September, 2010) The foilowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. f -<:' Thls is claimants' appeai for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additionai iVlotor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.06.2003, passed in Ciaim Case No.4/2003. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.5,10,000/-, ciaimed by the appellants/ciaimants, unfortunate parents of deceased Purushottam Sahu by filing a ciaim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for his death in the motor acddent on 15.08.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.82,000/- as compensation. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence !ed before it heid that ciaimants' son Purushottam Sahu died on account of the injuries sustained by him In the motor accident on 15.08.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himseif; as no extra premium was paid by the owner of the Motor Cycle for covering the risk ofthedeceased, the Insurance Company was not iiabfe to pay compensatlon to the claimants and the liability 1n that behaff vvas of the owner 6f the Motor Cycie. 4) The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum. By deducting 1/3rd of Rs.15,000/- towards the personai expenses ofthe deceased; the cigimants' dependency was assessed at Rs.10,000/- per annum. By muitiplying the annual dependency of Rs.10,000/- with the multipller of 8, the compensation was worked out to Rs.80,000/-. By awarding further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funerai expenses, the Tribuna! awarded '^.,. ^<^ "-;r^%'rCT^t^ L :i a total sum of Rs.82,000/- as compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal whiie exonerating the insurer of the Motor Cyde from its liability to pay compensation to the ciaimants held the owner of the Motor Gycle iiabie to pay compensation to the claimants. 5) Shri SC Verma, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding !ow compensation of Rs.82,000/- only. 6) Shri Q Aziz and Shri GVK Rao, learned counsei for respondent No.2 on the other hand reiying upon the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Ningamma & Another Vs United india Snsurance Co. Ud«reported in AIR 2009 SC 3056 submitted that the ciaim petition filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicies Act itseif was not maintainable. 7) Admittediy, claimants' son Purushottam Sahu himself was driving the Motor Cycie at the time of the accident and no other vehicle was invoived in the accident. The Motor Cycie dashed agalnst a tree resuiting in multiple injuries to deceased Purushottam Sahu, who succumbed to those tnjuries. 8) The Apex Court in the case of Ningamma & Another (supra) while considering the maintainabiiity of a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicies Act in somewhat simiisr circumstances,. where a person borrows a Motor Cycle from the owner and dies in the accident, observed in parat 9 : "19. We have already extracted Section 163-A of the MVA hereinbefore. A bare perusal of the said provision would mske it explicltiy clear that persons ilke the deceased in the present case would step |nto 4 \ / L. .^ the shoes of the owner of the vehide. in a case wherein the victim died or where he was permanently disabied due tp an accident arising out of the aforesaid motor vehicie in that event the iiablfity to make payment of the compensation is on the insurance company or the owner, as the case may be as provided under Section 163-A. But if it is proved that the driver Is the owner of the motor vehicle, in that case, the owner could not himseif be a recipient of compensation as the tiability to pay the same is on him. This proposition is absoluteiy dear on a reading of Section 163-A of the MVA. Accordingiy, the tegal representatives of the deceased who have stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor vehicie could not have claimed compensation under Section 163-AoftheMVA." 10) In view of the above quoted observation of the Apex Court in the case of Nlngamma & Another (supra) it is apparent that the ciaim petition filed by the ciaimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act itself was not maintainable. As the ciaimants' son deceased Purushottam Sahu himseif was driving the Motor Cycie and no other vehicle was involved in the accident and the accident occurred as the Motor Cycie dashed against a tree, in our opinion, even a claim petition under Sectibn 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act wouid not be maintainabie. 11) As the appeiEants'/cfaimants' petition filed under Section 163-A ofthe Motor Vehides Act itseif was not maintalnable in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Ningamma & Another (supra), there is no question of enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunat. 3te, padma c ...^ 12) The appeal filed by the appeliants/ciaimants for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is tiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismlssed. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge /