RESPONDENTS NON-CLAIMANTS it“ ETHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH MISELLANEOUS APPEAL(C)N0.- /2@C OF 2009 ww ' (MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, l 88) APPELLANT ta‘tLAIMANT Kw” 1r gsmw MW? w/mg /’Shiv Shankar Jha @ Shankar Jha, S/o Shri Janardan Jha, aged about 25 years, Present R/O — through — Ramadhar Jha, Ashok Nagar, Police Station — Gudhiyari, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Permanent Address /R/o — Samastipur, Police Station & District — Samastipur (Bihar) VERSUS The Prakash Industries Ltd., through Manager, Champa, District - Janjgir-Champai (C.G.) [Registered owner of vehicle Truck bearing registration No. CG 04/G/1 503] The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through— Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Jail Road, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) [insurer of vehicle Truck bearing registration No. CG 04/G/1 503] .W/ MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 / i M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M. A. (Cl No. 1306 of 2009 . g )é Appellant Shiv Shankar Jha @ Shankar Jha Versus Respondents The Prakash Industries Ltd. 85 another MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 N DB: Hon’ble Shri I. M. Quddusi 85 Hon’ble Shri G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocate for 1:116 appellant. Shri Sanjay K. Agarwal, Advocate vyih Shri SudeWl, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri Ashish Beck, Advocate for the reSpondent No. 2. I ORDER §Ora1) ( Passed on this 5th day of September, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi J. l. The instant appeal, filed by the appellant/claimant arises from the award dated 29.6.2009, passed by the 9‘“ Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur in Claim Case No. 28/2008, i dismissing the claim petition as not maintainable under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by thevclaimant/injured are that on 25.12.2003 he was going to Raipur from Champa by driving the vehicle bearing registration No, C.G. 04—G/1503. As soon as he reached to Village Banari Ambedkar Chowk, the truck got out of control and it struck against a roadside tree. As a result of that accident, during treatment the left leg of the claimant was cut, thereby he got permanent disability. The truck was owned by the respondent No.1 and it was insured with the respondent No.2. f The claimant/injured flled a claim case under Section 163—A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 31,80,000/— under various heads. Learned Claims Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record dismissed the claim petition as not maintainable under Section 163—A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, holding that the accident was caused due to own negligence of the claimant/injured and he was not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the record and the findings of the Tribunal. Since it has been held that the claim petition was not maintainable under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and it has been admitted in the written submissions by the owner of the vehicle that the injured/claimant was engaged as a helper/driver by asking him to produce the original driving licence and taking a trial of his driving, we are of the opinion that the injured/claimant should have filed a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claimant may be permitted to file a claim before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation as the claim petition under Section l63—A of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable. We are of the opinion that the claimant should not be kept remediless and even if his claim petition under Section l63—A was not maintainable he should be given an option to take recourse of law by filing a claim petition before the forum available to him. Wt 9. In View of the above, we allow this appeal in part and set aside the impugned award dated 29.6.2009. No order as to costs. 10. The claimant shall be at liberty t0 file a claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen’s compensation or avail any other remedy available to him under the law. 11. For the above purpose it is necessary to mention that the Claim petition before the Claims Tribunal was filed on 11. 1.2008 and it was dismissed 29m 2009. on June, Thereafter, the instant appeal was filed on 25.9.2009. Therefore, if any application is moved for condonation of delay before the Commissioner, the same shall be considered liberally, keeping in View that there was no limitation of filing a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal. M‘mhal“é Sal: am Sdl— I.M.Quddussi G- wage Judge Thakui