‘ APPELLANT cyaIMANfrs 7? Aw BEFORE THE H0N*BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘ wm gw @a a M.A.NO _ “%OF2§ 37 /Smt Ghurm Ba} daughter of Late Ram Jas Say, w1fe of Jagat Say, aged about 9 25 years, Caste Kunwar, msxdent of Village Khutera, Tola—Chingrapakhna, Rs. Kaixsahel, Tahsu Bagicha, District Jashpur(Chhattisgarh) Permanent resident of Village Mohanpur, PS Lailunga, Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh), V E R S U S :-. 1. Anil Kumar Agrawal, son of Jai Kumar /K Agrawal, aged 23 years, at the time of Committingaeeident was of 18 years, Caste Agrawal; resident of Village Ghoghai, P‘S.’ Kansabel, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarlhi, RESPONDENTS (Q samww ¢kc£§§ Fww ‘fmgoK 3’0 WWW— . I a: 0306A As yaw WWWSm Qxeax evx 5Q V\§&c\&e Ctlnmxwm £K 3 V ¥ ’ I ) P.S \KQvFaeéoeQ‘ Yak \%a\?§e\,\g 5V5“ Swwun LC .Q) NON—APPLICANTS / APPEAL {INDER SECTION‘I'B OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR DB: HON’BLE LM. QUDDUSI & HON’BLE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ M. A No. 23 OF- 2005 i APPELLANT i l Smt. Ghumi Bai 1 V5. RESPONDENTS Anil Kumar A rawal and another APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 APPEARANCE Mr. H. B. Agrawa1,-Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Meera Jajswal, counsel for the appellant. No one appears for the respondent. ORDER (ORAL) (31.03.2011) Per LM. QUDDUSI, J x (1) This appeal has been tiled by the claimant against the impugned award dated 01.10.2004 passed by the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal gFTC), Jashpur (do) in c1aim Case No. 16/2009; (2) Blief facts of the case as per the version of the claimant are that deceased Mangan‘ Baj was mother of the appellant. On 20.02.1997 after seeing the exhibition at Khansabel, Mangari Bai and others were returning on Tractor bearing Reg.No. M.P.26—El2974 85 Trolly No. M.P. “26—A/2975. She was said to be a paid passenger. On the way there was a slope between Sarhapani and Khutela on the main road where the said Tractor-Trolly which was being driven by non—applicant no. 1 in 'a rash and negligent manner became uncontrolled and met with the accident in which she died. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 42 years. She was doing domestic and agricultural works and was earning Rs.4500/— per month. The claimant being dependent/legal representative has filed claim petition for x (3) @ the award of compensation to the tune of Rs.37,15,000/ — on various heads in lieu of death of the deceased. The learned claims Tribunal has held that on 20,02. 1997 at 18.00 hours, the said Tractor Trolly met with accident in which Mangari Bai died, however, it was not proved that respondent no.1 was dxiving the said vehicle ina 'rash and negligent manner. The claimant being maln'ed lady cannot be said to he dependent on the deceased. Therefore, she is entitled to get the amount of no-fault liability u/ s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claim petition of the claimant appellant has been dismissed by the Claims Tribunal. To our opinion, the same has wrongly been dismissed because of the reason that the statute provides ‘no—fault liability’ u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In case of Smt. Manjuri Beta -vs- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and another, Am 2007 SC 1474 Hon’ble the Apex Court held that “No Fault Liability”, envisaged in section 140 of the said Act, is distinguishable from the rule of “Strict Liability”. Under no-fault liability, the compensation amount is fixed. It is Rs.50,QOO/ - in cases of t death which is a statutory liability. It is (4! £5! an amount which can be deducted from the nnal amount awarded by the Tribunal and where a legal representative who is not dependent nles an applicatiOn for compensation, the quantum cannot be less than the liability referable to section 140 of the Act. In View of the above, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned award and hold that the claimant appellant shall be entitled to get Rs.50,0001 — under “No Fault Liability” in terms of section,140 of the said Act. She will also be entitled ‘to get interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its payment is made. The said amount shall be paid by the owner of the vehicle i.e., non- applicantwwm petition. [J (5) Scu- ‘ i Sd/— I.M.Quddusi Prashant kumar Mishra Judge Judge _