^'^•^U-^^J^-^^u'^jiJ^^X.j^.' v ^ 1. IN THE HIGH COURT JUbICATURE AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal FC1 No. l ^^ OF 2009 @'^8 APPEU-ANT <^Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, .^^.'.•"8.^ Shivmohan Bhawan. Vidhansabha ^•••"^Sv'^J^^^ Mar9' pandri' Raipur (C.G.) ^;;:^ RESBONbENTS CI^IMANTS ^ Ovwer of the l^ehicle 2. Versus Sanjeey Kumar Kashyap S/o late Sundarlal Kashyap Aged about 30 years R/o Lalkhadan P.S. Torwa District Bilaspur C.G. Shri Satynarayan Agarwal S/o Late K.C. Agarwal Balaji fuel point Korba Oistrict Korba C.G. APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AGAINST THE AWARb/ORDER bATED 31S0S.20Q9 PASSEb BY. THE^MOTOR ACCIbENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL BILASPUR . (C.G.) PRESIbED OVER BY SHRI JAYDEEP VIJAY NIMObKAR IN C.T.NO.T^8/2008. ?ri8^ ^L. ^.^"^ HIGH CSOURT OF CHHATTI8GARH. BILA8PUR DB: Hon»bleI. M. QUDDU8I & Hon*ble G. MINHAJXTODIN, JJ APPBLLANT: RE8POIIDBNT8: M.AICI No.966/2009 BaJaj AUianz Insiiraxice Co. Ltd. Vs. Sanjeev Kiunar Kashyap aad others MI8C. APPBAL UNDBR 8ECTION 173 OF T1IB MOTOR VBHICLE8 ACT.1988 Appearaace: M:r. Abhishek Sinha & Mr, G.S. Patal, counsel for the appellaiit Mr, Rajendra Kumar, counsel for respondent no, 1. Mr. Ravi Ranjan Siaha, counsel for respCTident no,2, Per I.M. OUDDUSI. J. ORAL ORDBR (28.07.2011) 1. This appeal has been fited by the Insiirance CoiEipemy fi^iiast the impugned awaid dated 31.03.2009 passed by the VII Addl. Motor Accident Clamis Tribuaal, Bflaspur, Distnct Bilaspur (C.G) in Claim Case No. 148/2008. 2. Brieffacts offhe case as per fhe version ofclahaiaat iajured are fhat on 05,07.2008 he was driviag a Tanker bearmg Rega. No. C.G,04-JA/7251, which started firom Bilaspiir to reacfa. Ambikapur. On fhe way near Vishrampur, the finont tire of fhe vehicle was biirat due to fhis ffae said vehicle became uncontroUed aad dashed against a tree, as a resiilt of which, he sustaiaed injiuy on bss leg. In fhe said accident, Bh^wat Sahu who was workmg as helper in the said vehicle ateo nj^\ S ^—•"•??^1 l/'l"e^"^l ^H klNNN^- sustaiaed grievous injunes and died on the spot ^eause of the injuxy sustaiaed by fhe claimaat he becaxtie perDianentty disabled and filed claim petition u/s 163-A of tiie Motor Vehicles Act for fhe award of total compensatioxi of Rs,3,30,000/- onvarious heads. 3, Leanied Claiins Tribuxtal held fhat while the claimaxit was driving Tanker bearing Rega.No. C.0.04-JA/7251 met with accident as a result ofwhich he becaine permaaienfty disabled and it has awarded a total compensation of Rs.75^000/- which he is entifled to receive fiTom fhe non-applicaiits jointfy axid severally. 4« We have heard leamed couaisel for the parties and have ateo gone through the records of fhe Tribunal. S. In the claid petition, fhe claimaat has mentioned fhe iacome of the deceased as Rs,3500/- per montih. which axaouitts to Rs.42000/- per aTiniiTn, Sioce the aanual iiicome of Itie deceased was mentioned as Rs.42000/- that is more fhaa the outer Umit of Rs.40,000/- fixed ia fhe Second Schedute appended to fhe Motor Vehicles Act 1988, the claim petition filed u/s 163-A offhe Act is not mamtamable, 6. In Deepfd Qtrlahbcii Soni -V9- Dinited IndUa Jirwuranc® Company I^trf., Bcirod (2004) S SGC 385, a three Judge Bench of Hon^le the Supreme Court while reviewmg the decision of two Judge Bench in case of Oriental Insumnce Co. Ltd. Vs. Hansrcgbhai V. Kodala & others (2001) S SCC 175 held as iiader: ,..-<„"-"^^. \. ..^'"..A. "a'%..'< a67. We, fherefore, are of fhe opioioxi fhat Kodala has corrccffy been decided, However, we do not a^ree with fhe findiags m Kodtala fhat if a peraon iavokes provisions of section 163-A, the aonual iacome of Rs.40,000/- per annum shall be treated as a cap. In our opixdoii^ fhe proceediag u/s 163-A beine social security provisioa, providiag for a distm.et scheine- oxilv fhose whose aiuiiial mcome is upto Rs,40,000/ - caa take the be^^^ thereof, AU ofher claims are reauired to be determiaed ia terms of Chapter XII of tfae Actiy fEmohasis supDUedl 7« In view of what has been discussed above, we hold fhat the clami peUtion filed u/s 163-A of fhe MVA is not mamtamable as fhe aanual iacome of the deceased exceeds fhe outer limit of Rs.40,000/- fixed in fhe Second Schedule. Hence, we allow fhis appeal and set aside fhe impugned award dated 31.03,2009. However, fhis wiU not debar fhe claimaat to fite a fresh claim petition under the relevant provisions oflaw for fhe tumie beiag iai force, 8. In the result the appeal is allowed, No order as to cost(s). Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao