APPELLANT Applicants ^•"'..-S ,.s... -. s^ -, IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASi'UR CHHATTISGARH M.A. (c) No.fcfc'/> /200^ 1. Ravi Yadav S/ o Ganesh Yadav, Aged about 22 years, R/o Birgahni, , Tahsil-Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.). ,-^— RESPONDENTS „ 1. ^e^w JS^f\' Non-applicants ^- VERSUS Gajanand Jaiswal, S/c( Metrar^l Jaiswal, V3=^^^^-^^ Aged about 24 years, R/o Village Semra, P.S. Ratanpur, Tahsil-Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) . {Driver ofVehicle bearing No. C.G.-10A-0545} Jaiswal, aged about 50 years, R/o Village Semra, P.S. Ratanpur, Tahsil-Kota, District ••y .^'" .^- '.^u? •^ 2. Abheram Jaiswal, S/o LatAnandram \sy^ ^^^f--' ^, ^^'r-^"'" >3cmra' '''°' Kal-a"Pur' lans"-K yy Bilaspur (C.G.) {Owner ofVehicle bearing No. C.G.-10A-0545} 3. United Indialnsurance Company Ltd., Branch office Mendhenkar Complex . Rajendra Nagar Sequayar, Bilaspur C.G. MISC. APPEAL U/S. 173 QF THE MOTOR_VEHICLBACT. H£<m^OURTOFCHHATTISGARHL BJLASPUR M.A. (C)No. 663 of 2008 Appellant Ravi Yadav Versus Respondents Gajanand Jaiswal & others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFTHE MOTOR VEHI£LESACTJ988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi SE Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kuraar Mishra, JJ Shri Rajesh Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Rakesh Sahu, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORDER fOral) ( Passed on this 2nd day of Febmaiy, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant against the impugned award dated 11.5.2006, passed by the 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Bilaspur in Claim Case N6. 126/2005, dismissing the claim petition. Brieffacts ofthe case, in nutshell, are that the appellant/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 8,22,000/- under various heads on the ground that on 14.9.2002 due to the rash and negligent driving of the non-applicant No.l, while driving the tractor-trolley, bearing registration No. C.G. 10 A/1396 and 1397, the trolley turned turtle. As a result of this accident the appellant/claimant received grievous injuries and his two fingers of the left leg were cut down. The appellant/clainiant was present on th^ spot in the capacity of a labour, engaged by the non-applicant No.2/owner of the vehicle. The owner and driver have filed their joint written statement wherein it was denied that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the non-applicant No.l/driver. The non-applicant No.2/owner has denied that the tractor-trolley was in moving condition. According to the owner, the tractor was standing without engine and the engine was taken away from the tractor in a nearby field by the driver Sooran Singh. The claimant himself was negligent and he deliberately touched the connecting iron rod (coupling) of the trolley, which connects the tractor with trolley, and that is why the claimant sustained injuries due to his own negligence. Para 15 of the written statement reads as under: " 15. ~!fg ^ ^RRT ^Efe-TT R.lfcb ^t 3F1T^q? ^. 2 ^T 'S^e^ ^Tcft VW ^Wcft ^ W '\<iWK\ 4 ^t aft ^^Rn? q>T ^'uT'T q?f TR ^ W ^e^ ^ ^uT-T ^t ^^? ^ra^? ^q^-r Rrg ^r uildi^ w^ ~TV\ ^srr aiT | 3|-1|^<*'|"| ^t ^ ufl'l*l'i1 ftcft t fe ant?qi ^fecT yfcr-TT R-1I"4» ^t -1c|14KI ^UIcfl ^ W?T ^t aft. S<)-d< ST^t c^ ^Eff VS ^uPT ^T ufrs^ ^Tcft ^TS ^it a-1|c|;i<|ct> ^oq ^ ^ST '?ST a.[T T^i ffcpR ^ SST^V 'Sve^ STcft ^ CTST ^err T^<R ^^<sii4) ^^ ^r aiT f^ra^ <t>K"l 3Tcft ^T ^''ETT ^TS 311^<i* ^ 4<; ^' cPT 7PTT S.TT ult 1^ ^ <?114<c||^| -^ trf^T ^STT STT ^TTT ^re ^t giq^ cft^ ^ ^' PRT^ ^ Rr^ an^ip ^qcT: rui":l4i< t l Tfre< ;ETT'T grtSrf^TipT ^' xretft ^ qTg^ ^ ^T^ ^4e-ii ^hft t (pft siRi^RT ^rf^r ^St iiriT ^t uir ^recft t f^T'H WT?T ail^cb ^Tcft ^ •OTST ^'s^arpft q^ '?ST BTT •g^T •WIPT ^•EfEn? ^>T 5'uT.T ^Teft ^ qw ^ ^(f 1 f^i. ft. ^ft ^R ^cT u),dl^ ^? '•^T aiT I" In view of the above facts, meritioned by the owner in his written statement, we are of the opinion that the instant case was not a case of motor aceident. The Claims Tribunal has framed issues as usual but did not pay attention as to whether the claim petition itself was maintainable under Seetion 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or not. ^ ^\ 5. Since the tractor was standing without engine and the engine was taken to the field and the claimant got injuiy by the connecting rod of the trolley, it is apparently a plea of the owner that the claim petition was not maintainable. Therefore, the findings given by the Claims Tribunal are liable to be set aside and the claim petidon is liable to be dismissed as not inaintainable. 6. Resultantly, we allow this appeal in part and set aside the impugned award dated 11.5.2006 as also the findings given by the Claims Tribunal. The claim petition filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 is also dismissed as not maintainable. 7. However, this will not debar the appellant/clainiant from approaching the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 if he so desired, as according to his allegadon he was in the employment - of the owner of the tractor-trolley and in case the claixn petidon is filed before the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, none of the findings given by the Claims Tribunal would be taken into consideration and the claim petition shall be decided independently, without being influenced by the findings or the order passed by the Claims Tribunal or by this Court in the instant appeal. 8. The appeal is allowed in part to the above extent. No order as to costs. —~\ __„ ____. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge -'•'.'? Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Thalcur \