^^^^^^'^^^^^^^^^SBa"^'e'^^SSg3^''¥S'i?;°T IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURf C.G.) i M.A.fONO.'^i-^' OF_2007 JSlOSi APPELLANTS CLAIMAINTS ^f^ ^' 0 ^ ^" ^ s? 1. Salikram Son of Shri Khorbahra Lodhi (Rajput), aged about 50 years, Occupation Labour; Ramkumari Bai Wife of Shri Salikram Lodhi (Rajput), aged about 47 years, Occupation Labour; Urmila Bal Widow of Late Shri Bali, aged about 27 years, Caste Lodhi (Rajput); ^^ Fuleshwari D/o Late Shri Bali, aged about 09 years; ^5. Angad Kumar Sonof Late Shri Bali, aged about 04 years; 6. Durpati Bai D/o Late Shri Bali, aged •^ about 02 years; The appellant No.4 to 6 are Minors, through their natural guardian Mother Urmila Bai widow of Late Shri Bali, Caste Lodhi (Rajput), Occupation Labour. All Residents of Village Binaika, Post Putpura, Police Chowki Maro, Police StationNandghat, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDBMTS •^" ^ Ravindra RajputSon ofShri Umashankar Rajput (Lodhi), aged about 20 years, Resident of Village Binaika, Post Putpura, Police Chowki Maro, Police Station Nandghat, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G.). (DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE). 2.(L/"Goverdhan Son of Shgri Rajaram '<?^'" ? • '. . . Rajput, aged about 30 years, Resident of Village Binaika, Post Putpura, Police Chowki Maro, Police Station Nandghat, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Durg (C.G.). . 3. ^The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, .Manager, Kachahari Chowk, Madina Manzil, Raipur (C.G.). MEMQ_QF_APPEAL UND.ER SECTION 173 f2) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 B ,<ff-€^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT_gILA^UR biyiSIONBENCH: HON-BLE R. I.M.QU&S^SI & HON'Bl^ MR.6ULAM MINHAJU&MN- JJ Appellants Resoondents M.A. (C1 No.263/2(K)7 Salikrnm & other-s Vs ftavindra Rajput & otiiers Present: Mr. P.P. Schu, Advocate fer the appellants. Mr. A. Vaiainav, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. M. Upcdhyay, Advocate for the peqiondentNo.3. OROER(Oral) (6th Juty. 20lt) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The Bppelkints-claimonts have fited Ihis miscelluteous oppeat ogainst the award dated 09.11.2006 passed by -the learned 3 Additionat Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, Distrtet Durg (for short- the Claims Tribunal') in Ctaim Case No.95/2004. 3. Facts of the case, m brief, are that on 1.3.2003 deceased Bati was traveling in tractor-trolley bearing registration No.A 26-E-1370/l371. Due to radi and negligent driving &f the driver of said tractor-trolley, it met with an accident as a result of which the deceosed sustnined grievous injuries and died on the spot. The ckiimants fited claim applicatiwi seekin9 compaisation to the tune of Rs.7,40,000/- on the ground that -the deceased was edmiry Rs.50/- per day, they were d^)endent on the deceased, who was sote earning member in •the family, and due to death of -the deceased they hcve arffered loss of income. 4. The Claims Tribunal vide impugned award dismissed cluim of the ctaimnnts on the ground that accident was the result of rKgtigence on the part of the deceoeed who him»lfwas drivmg the vehicte at the time of accident. S. We have heard teamed counsel for the part'ies. We have also perused the records of the Cfaims Tribunal. ^ ' s'; ;.• :*!' . ^c/ 6. Leamed counset for the appellants-ctaimants has submiWed Thoff -Uie appellants should not have been denied legitimate compensation as under the Motor Vehictes Act, 1988 (for brevi-ty Ihe Act, 1988') there is a special provision i.e. 5ection 163-A, where there is no necessity toplead or eslablidi the negligence or wrongful act or default. Therefore, he has prayed for withdrawat of the claim petition filed uncter Section 166 of •the Act, 1988 wfth libert/ to file ctaim petition under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988. 7. Considering the fact that scheme of compensation, as it appearg, has been embodied in the Statute with cn object to save vagrancy of the dependent of the victim ond also that poor ckiimants should not be deprived of getring legitimate compensation availabte to them under 1+w low, n» are of the opinton that oral prayer made by Ihe leamed counsel for the appeliants deserves to be atlowed. Accordingly, we allow oral proyer &f the leamed counset for Ihe appellonts, set aside -the impugned award and dismtesed The claim petition of Ihe appelkints filed under Sectiwi 166 of the Act, 1988 with liberty to file fresh ctaim petition under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 before the Claims Tribunal concerned. No order as to «>sts. S^&rtified copy as per rules. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge G.Minhajjiidin Judge Rodum/-