@ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. Miscellaneous a eal NO.Wk .....[/2005. /PELLANTS . /£. Smt.Rukhamani Bai Wd/o Late Shri Banshilal Ratre, aged about 4O years. Jaiprakash S/o Late Shri Banshilal Ratre, through gardian his Hmther Smt. Rukhamani Bai wd/o late shri Banshilal Ratre, Both resident of Village—Rampur tahsil—kurud dist.amatari (C.G.) RE SPONDENTS . (Dyiver) ff l. Banwari dhar, aged lal about S/o Shri 43 Sona §@ars, Resident of Bairah Bajar near Chooti Masjid,Raipur Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Moh. Shahjad Khan S/o Shri V AAsgar 'Khan,resident of Trimurti Nagar Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Near Adarsh Bal Mandir Distt. Dhamatari (C.G.) (Owner) \ wy MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988. Dh w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. N0. 1344 of 2005 Appellants Smt. Rukhamani Baj 86 another Versus Respondents Banwari Lal 85 others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon’ble Shfi Justice I. M. Qnddusi 8L Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kurnar Mishra, JJ Shri R. S. Patel, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri sudhir Agarwal, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ‘ ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 10m day of December, 2010 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants against the impugned award dated 8.8.2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari in Claim Case No. l 10/ 2004. ‘ 2. The, brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 18.9.2002 deceased Banshi Lal along with one Pappu Kumar was going to Imtarai by cycle. At that time, the mini bus, bearing registration .No. C.G. O4—ZA/0165, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the non—applicant No.1 (Banvvari Lal) hit the cycle, consequently the body of Banshi Lal was crushed, resulting in death of Banshi Lal. 3. The present appellants/claimants Rukmani Bai (second wife) and Jai Prakash (son) had filed the Claim Case N0. 110/2004 and other claimants “Smt. Raj Bai (first wife), Kumari Mamta (daughter), 0m Prakash (son), Rajni Bai (mother) and Ramadhin (father) had filed ClaimCase No. 111/2004. Both the claim cases were tried (b) together by the learned claims Tribunal and have been decided by the common order dated 8.8.2005. . Learned Tribunal has dismissed the Claim Case No. 110/2004 filed by the present appellants/claimants on the ground that the appellant No.1 — second Wife has not been able to prove that she is a legal heir of the deceased, Within the meaning of the provisions of Section 166 0f the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Whereas awarded a sum of Rs. 3,56,600/— as compensation to the other claimants who had filed c1aim Casé No. 1 1 1 /2004. 5. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under : “166. fiApplication for compensation, (l) An application for compensation arising out 0f an accident of the nature specified in sub—section (1) of section 165 may be made - (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or by the owner 0f the property; or .(c) Where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all 0r any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be; \ Provided that where all the legal representatives 0f the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for ‘ the benefit of a1 the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. (2) Every application under sub—section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or Within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed; Provided that where no claim for compensation under section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant. 3. xxx 4. The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub—section (6) 'of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.” In the present case the quantum fixed in the award by the Claims O\ Tribunal is not disputed. However, as to how the amount is to be disbursed {amongst all the legal heirs is the question, as in Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 it is provides that where the death has resulted from the motor accident and all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf r of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be ' impleaded as respondents to the application. Therefore, the appellant I. No.2/claimant Jai Prakash who was born from the V appellant No.1/claimant Smt. Rukmani Bai, alleged second wife of the deceased, whether they are entitled to get the compensation or not is t0 be decided by the Tribunal. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we allow this appeal in part and set-aside the impugned award dated 8.8.2005 and remit the matter back to the Tribunal to consider tl’ie claim of the ‘ present appellant and if it is found that they are also entitled for compensation, to direct for disbursement of the amourit of the award in appropriate ratio. 10. 11. 12. Tha_kur We hereby clarify that we have not considered the case of the present (161/ 35's. appellants/claimants on merits one way or the other and the Tribunal has to decide the case on merits after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties to adduce further evidence, amend pleadings, file documents or get the documents verified etc. The amount of compensation which has been deposited by the Insurance Company shall remain in deposit till the settlement of the ratio of the amount of compensation for disbursement. However, in case the amount is already disbursed, in that case, the Tribunal shall pass the order regarding entitlement of each of the legal heirs and if excess amount is paid to any of the legal heirs the same shall be recovered for payment to other legal heirs. It is expected that the Tribunal would expedite the hearing and decide'the' claim petition, as indicated above, withina reasonable period. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. No order as to costs. The Registry is directed to send back the papers, requisitioned from thé Tribunai, forthwith. 5d}- i < #f VI.M.Quddusi; i ‘i Sd/— /3 Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge