^^ :!'i IN THE HIGH COURT-OF JUDICATURE AT BIL^SPUR (C.G.) M<A. N0. /2003. APPELLANT aingh ^ Blr Sax J^ien S/o Sri Late Bhuiya Ram Aged about-40yea-2B R/o Village- Hardisad, Tahsil Sitapur^ Distt- SargujaCc^G^) Versus / RESPONDENTS ^ ^U) Rarn Narayan Gupta S/o Sri lam Lakhan^ Aged about-40years R/o Village- Bailgudi, Tahsil- Sitapur, Distt - Sarguja (C-»G*) ^y^y^ ^r^^'' ^ n ^2^ United Indialnsurance Canip- ^^{\y^1^^ {^^^ any Limited, Near- Ram Mandir .^ft\'wl?^<^?.'*'' \- Post- Amfeikapur, Dis-fct-Sarguja ^v'^>>" (C.G.) ^>- s^-' APPEAL UlNSDER SECTION 173 OF MOTORVEHICLE ACT t CLAIM IN APPE.AL VALUEO AT RSi99,-00'0/- -TT- OF CHHATTESGARH AT_B!LASPUR APPELLANT Bjr SaE Dien Versys Ram Narayan Gupta and another. APE.EAL U/S 173 OF THE ACT. 1888 iSla'iale Bench: Mr. N.K. J.l Shn Vikram Dixit, counsel for the appeilant. Shri R.P. Slngh, counsei forthe respondent No.1. Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate wlth Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.2. on '22nd day of Febryary, This is oiajrnant's appeaj against the dlrectlon in the award dated 23-09-2003 by Fifth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribuna! (F.T.C.), Ambikapur in Claim No.14/2002 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the iearned Tribunal under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') In favour ofthe appefjant has been directed to be rsfunded on the premise that the appeliant/cjaimant bejng major son of the deceased, is not entjtled for any compensatlon. 2. The facts briefly stated are ss under Smt. Buchj Saj, (since deceased) about 80 years, mother ofthe appellant met with an accident on 31-12-2001 wlth motorcycte bearing rsgistration No. C.G. 15/1597 and succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. 3. The appeliant being major son of the flled clairn petitjon under Section 166 of the Act, claimlng Rs,-S,11,000/~ as compensation for the death of his mother in the said accident. The appellant has flied an applicatjon under Sectjon 140 of the Act aiong with ciairn petitjon. ^ -2^ @ 4. Learned TribunaJ has aiiowed the application under Sectlon 140 of the Act and awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- vlde jts order dated 08-1 0-2002. Thereafter, the learned Tribuna! on appreciation of evidence led, material piaced and submlssEons made, dismissed the ciaim case on the ground that the appellant is not dependent upon the deceased. Ateo heid that the non-applicants are entltled for refund of the amount deposited by them In compljance of the order passed by the Tribuna! under Section 140 of the Act, 5. The Apex Court In case of (Smt) vs. !nsifrsnc@ CompSny LtcS., reported jn (2007) 10 SCC ©43,has been heid in para 13 as under: "13. There are several factors which have to be noted. The iiabiiity under Section 140 of the Act does not cease because there is absence of dependency. The right to file a claim appiication has to be considered In the background of right to entJtiement. Whiie assessing the quantum, the mujtipjler system is appljed because of deprivation of dependency. in other words, multiplier is a measure. There are three stages while assessing the questlon of entitiemenf. Flrstly the ilabjlity of the person who is iiable and the person vvho is to indemnify the liabijjty, If any. Next ss the quantification and Section 166 is primariSy In the nature of reccvery proceedings. As noted above; jlabiiJty in terms of Sectlon 140 of the Act does not csase because of absence or dependency." 6. jn view of above, She learned Tribunat has erred Jn holding that non-applicants are entjtied for refund of the amount deposited by them in compilance of the order by the Tribuna! under Section 140 of the Act. Theretore, the sald direction issued In the award is set aside. The appeal js ailovi/ed In part. The aforesaid directlon in the award ofthe TribunaE Is set aslde and award is modified accordingly. No order as to costs. Kvr Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge