c ^- /\^ THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC.APPEALfONO. Af^ OF 2010 APPELLANT Ibn-Applicant No 2 ....^4^ ^Tl.k- ^::;i .^^ •^s tA^- RE&PONDENTS ^Applicants Non-Applicant No.1 Non-Applicant No. 3 Non-Applicant No. 4 Non-ApDlicant No. 5 Mukesh Vishwakarma, S/o Late Anand Prakash Vishwakarma, aged about 26 years, resident of Nayapara, Bhanupratappur, Police Station and Tahsil - Bhanupratappur,District North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) VER8U8 s^- ^- 3. y" k ^' 1 .^ Srnt. Kanchan Jayte, W/o Late Santosh Jayte, aged about 26 years, Ku. Durga Jayte, D/o Late Santosh Jayte, aged about 06 years, Ku. Harshita Jayte, D/o Late Santosh Jayte, aged about 02 years, Respondent/Claimant no. 2 and 3 are minor, through: Natural Guardian Mother of Smt. Kanchan Jayte, Respondent No. 1 to 3 are by Caste mahar, R/o Village Bhiragaon, P.S. and Tahsil Bhanupatappur, District North Bastar Kanker(C.G.) .d^ Jftmman Patel, S/o Adhiriram Patel, aged about 20 years, Caste-marar, Resident of Village - Narayanpur, Police Station and Tahsil Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) (Driver) The New India Insurance Company Limited, Prakash Bhawan, Station Road Durg (C.G.) Sanat Kumar Yadav, S/o Late Balram yadav, aged about 40 years, Smt. Meena Yadav, W/o Sanat Kumar Yadav, aged about 35 years, Both the by caste Rawat, Resident of Aawaspara, Sambalpur, Police 4. 7. ^ 7T Station and Tahsil - Bhanupratappur, District B.astar-Kanker(C.G.) "c^"' j^ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 A., 3$ HI^H COUKT OF CHHATTISeARH AT B1LASPUR DIVISION BENCH; HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI B HON'BUE MR.WLAM MINHAJUDDIN, JJ AppellaNt Respondents M.A. [C] No.615/2010 Mukesh Vishwakarma Vs Smt. Konchan Jayte <& another Present: Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate for the appetlant. Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Norse for other respondents. ORDER tOraD (9th August. 2011) I.M.Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appeiiant-owner has fited this miscellaneous appeal against the award dated 02.12.2009 passed by the tearned Additiond Motor Accidents Ctaims Tribunal, (FTC), Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar, Kanker (for short the Ctaims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 11/09. 3: Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 16.11.2008 at about 1.00 p.m. deceased Santosh Jayte was traveling in the commQnder Jeep bearing registration number C&019~Ta-0240. The driver of offending vehicle bearing registration number C6019-T-0115 dashed the said jeep near ViStage NaFayanpur as a result said Santosh Jayte sustained grievous iryuries, He was admitted in the hospital for treatment w/here he died w/hile undergoing treatment. Report of the accident was lodged in the Police Station Bhanupratappur. The claimants fiied claim application seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.15,25,000/- on the ground that they were dependent on the deceased, who u/as the sole earnin9 member in family, and due to his death, they have suffered loss of income. 4. The Claims Tribunal vide impugned award partiolty dtowed thc claim dpplication of the claimants, awarded a sum of Rs.3,03,OOOA as compensation and held the appellant herein liable to pay compensotion. '^i^l^ ^<^" 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted thot the appellant as sold the offending vehicle to one Shri Sanat Kumar Yadav on 16.7.2007 and handed over the possession of the offending vehicle also and as such, on the dateof accident the appellont was not the registered owner of the offending vehicle and therefore he cannot be held lioble to pay any compensation. He further submits that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is dso not in accordance with law. He has also submitted that in absence of any proof regarding negiigence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle, the Claims Tribunal should have aw/arded compensation on the basis of contributory negligence. SL On the other hand, learned counsel forthe respondent No.l has supported the impugned award. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also pcrused the records of the Claims Tribunot. 8. In the record of the case, there is a document dated 26.2.2010 issued by the Regional Transport Officer, North Bastar, Kanker (C&) addressed to the appeltant herein and in which it is mentioned that the offending vehicle was transferred to Smt. Meena Yadav, wife of Shri Sanat Yadav on 18.2.2009. Even, Form-29 i.e. form of notice of transfer of ownership of a motor vehicte, was signed by the appeltant in the narne of said Smt. AAeena Yadav. In these circumstances, entire transaction, which is alleged to have taken place between the appellant and said Sanat Kumar Yadav prior to 18.2.2009, became non est and no notice of the same can be taken at this stage. Howevcr, if the possession of the offending vehicle was handed over to said Sanat Kumar Yadav, husband of Smt. Meena Yadav, at an eartier date then for the purpose of the Act, 1988 it may not have any effect, but it will be a dispute between the appelfant and said Shri Sanat Kumar Yadav and for which the appeltant may take recourse to the remedies os are avaitable to him in this regard under the law. 9. So far as the contributory negligence and assessment of amount of compensation is concerned, we have perused the record and found that the Claims Tribunal has decided the issue regarding contributory negligence in ~^'"" :•,.. ""^. •••^"^. i. •^ ^•^- '%; ;.^ ^".^' ^.,.^'^'' 3 o very casual manner w/ithout considering any evidcnce, spot map and other police record submitted by the InvestigQting Officer. Further/ we feel that while fixing compensation the Cldms Tribunal has not followed the principles laid down in this regard by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sarta VerniQ (Smt.) and others Vs. Delhi Transporl- Corporotion & another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Therefore, we feel that the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Cldms TribunaL 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, impugned award is set oside and the mQtter is remitted back to the Claims Tribunal for taking decision afresh in light of the observotions made in this order. Needless to mention that the Ctaims Tribunal shall provide opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, and amend the pieadings or to file documents or verifythe documents already filed. The parties are dlrected to appear before the Claims Tribunal concernect on 14th Septembor, 2011. 11. The Registry is directed to tronsmit record of the Claims Tribunal concerned u/ithout further delay. No order as to costs. Roshan/- Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ^'