Divlslon Bench IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) MISC. APPEAL fO N0. 7 ^l OF 2011 APPELLANTS Claimants J ^.^/^ NA^ w/^ ^ Kaushal, S/o Late Loknath Sahu, aged about 30 yeas, Occupation Nothing. Chohal, S/o Loknath Sahu, aged about 28 years, Occupation Nothing, Both are R/o Village Rangitola, Police Station Chichola, Huriya, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) NON-APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. ^ 2. Dhanraj Manohar Nathile, S/o Manohar Nathile, aged about years (not mentioned in impugned order) Occupation vehicle owner, Vehicle No. M.hl. 31 C.B. 7624 (Milk Vehicle) R/o Vijay Krishna Stores, Room No. 16, Ladekar Lay Out Ayodhya Nagar, Nagpur, (Maharastra) 440013 Reliance . General Insurance Company Limited, Through: Branch Manager, Reliance, Shop No. 412, IVth Ftoor, Ravi Bhawan, Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) (Policy No. 15060723290149412) (Date 30.11.2007 to 29.11.2008) Claimed before Tribunal Amount awarded by the learned Tribunal Claimed in this Memo ofAppeal Rs. 20,50,000/-. Claim Dismissed ,- Rs. 20,50,000/- MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 HIQH COURT OP CHHATTIBGAmi AT BILABPUR MiSC. AFPEAL (0 N0. 721 OF 2011 APPBLLAKTS^ Cls.inisisite RB_SPOND.BNTS Kausual aiid aiiottici\ Versiss Dliaiiraj Maiio'faai' Natlille aiid ^iiother. APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MGTOR VBHSCLE ACT. 1988 r - (DB: Hoa'MeSSui I.aa.Quddusi SB Hon»bleShri G. Mitt2ia|udd£n,JJ.l 'f Presesst : Shii Abliishek Sharnia, counsel for th.e appellaats. Shri Sourabh Shanna, learaed coiiiisel appears on behalf of respoiident No.2/InsuraB.cc Company on advaace copy. ORAL_ORDER (Passed oa 30fch day of Septepsfoey^ 2011| Per I.M. Qaddusi. J. This appeal Iias been filed by the appeliaiits/claiiiiants agaiast tlie impugned award dated 02-04-2011 pass»edby the Motoi' Accident Clalms Tribiinal, Rajnaiidgaoii (tbr short 'flie Claims Tribuual') ia Clami Case No.44/2011, disimssiag flie claioi petltion oftlie applicaiits/claimaiits. \r 2. Brief facts of tlie case as per cliai'ge-sheet filed by the police agaio.st tlie accused persons four iii uuiiiber, under Section 302 ao.d 376/34 ofthe l.P.C. is that on 17-08-2008 an m-ikiiown dead body of a woBiaa was fouad uear KIiairljaiia Road. There were iiiarks of injtuies over the dead body. Duriiig Uie course of liivestigatlon tlie dead body was identl&ed as tlxat of Daslioda Bal. It was fouud fhat she had stopped a tiuck beariiig registration No. M,H. 31-CB/7624 for goiag to Cliichola aiid boarded MI the said truck. On the way, tliiee persoiis ti-avelmg 111 the same ti-uck, get dowii fhe deceased froiii the ti'tick arid coiiinilttecl rape wifh lier aiid tliereafter iiiurdeied her. 3. Tlie appellaiits/clamiaiits by Cluig aii application before flie Claims Tribunal tuider Section 163-A 6f tiie Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'tiie Act"), claiuied coiiipensation for tlie deatli offlie deceased ^^^^ ^%. i' ^^SSS^ ^ "^i.^^^ii^ j^ ^ "--asss^ ^ '\ .. W -f VK '•i>^^/' as flie above offeiice was coBiialtted wlxile tlie cleceased was ti-aveliiig in Uie truck in questlon^ 4, Tlie leai'ned Tribunal after coiisideriiig tlie evideiice available on record disiaissed tlie claiai petition as not niaLiitaiiiable under tiie provisions ofMotor Vehlcles Act, 1988. 5. We have lieard learned counsel for fhe appellarits/claiiaaiits aad leaiTied counsel appeariag for respondent No.2/Reliaiice General Insuraiice Coiiipau.y, 6, Shri Sourabh Shai'Bia, leai'ned coiuisel appeariug for respondent No.2/RellaAice General IiASUi-aiwe Coiiipa&iy has subiiiittecl tliat in fact fhe claijaa petition its^If was iiot iiialiitaiiiable under Section 163 of tlie Act, as tlie claimaiits fliemselves have iiieiitioiied ia tlie claiin petitlon th.at flie deceased was earniiig Rs.8,000/- per isiontli aad heiice tlie annual iacoAjae would come to Rs,96,000/- which is exceecliiig to Rs.40,000/- aiid, therefore in. view of tlie decision of Honljle Apex Couil m Dccpal S^rd ^thcrs f?s- Unitcd Ji&dia JfisMraace C@. 1.^^ Saroda^ reported m (20041 5 SCC SSS, fllis appeal wiil not be maiiitaiiiable. 7. The leai'ned Trlbunal has disinissed the claim petition on Bierits but it should have considered flrst whefher fhe clauii petltioii was niaiiitaiu.able uiider Section 163-A ofthe Act or not. 8, Hon'ble Apex Com-t iii Becpal and ^thcra i?s< Unitcd Sftsurancc C^ Lt&.^ Bar^dc^ reported ia (20041 5 SCC 385 has held m para 67 as uiider: "67, We, therelbre, aie offlie opiiiioii that KodafahoB correctly been decided. However, we do not agrec wifli tlie fiiidiQ.gs iii Kodala that if a persoii iiivokes provisloiis of Section 163-A, flie aruiual Micoiae of Rs. 40,000 per aiinuisi shall be treated as a cap. In our opiiiion, flie proceediag under Sectioii 163-A beisig a social sec-tuity provlsioa, pioviding for a distinct sclieine, oiily those whose anBual iixcoiiie is up to Rs. 40,000 caii tafce the beiiefit thereof, All other clamis ajL-e required to be deteriiiiiied iu ^terais of Cliapter XII oftheAct." ^ l— Kvr 9. In view of tiie above, tiie claim petitioxi tiuder Sectioii 163-A of fhe Act was not jiiauitainable at all. Therefore,, we set aside tlie fuidiugs giveii by flie Claims Tribunal 011 merits aiid held tiiat tlie claiiii peUtloii was not inaiiitaiiiable under Sectlon 163-A oftlie Act 10, Iii our opiaion, as tlie claLoiao.te liad approached fhe Claiiiis Tribunal under tlie provislons oftlie Act which are not applicable to fhe facte of tlie case, fhey should not be left remedlless. Therefbre, aii opportunity is given to tlie clalmaiits to approach the appropriate foruisi under tiie provislons oflaw available to them. 11. In th-e result, tlie appeal is dlsposed ofaccordiiigly. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge p-