C-t (p ^- •y' v' (GH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR, ( <^ ) N0. OF 2008 Prasad Dubey, S/o Budheshwar Prasad Dubey, aged about 40 years, R/o village Hirri, Tehsil Kondagaon, District Bastar (CG). Versus 1. ^Pareshwar Tiwari, S/o Hiralal, aged about 27 years, R/o village Hirri, Tehsil Kondagaon, District Bastar (CG). 2. Shiv Prasad Netam, S/o -^ Dasru Rara Netam, aged about 38 years, R/o Jugani Kalar, presently R/o Sargipal Para, Kondagaon, District Bastar (CG). ^*' Vt HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (0 No. 1578 of 2QQ8 Appellant Claimant Respondent Driver Keshari Prasad Dubey Versus Pareshwar Thwari & Another APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'bte Shri Satish K.Agnihotri & Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal, JJ Present Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Vikram Dixit, Advocate for respondent No. 1. O R D E R (Oral) (Passed on this 1tfh day of November, 2009) Heard. 1. The present appeal arises from the impugned award derted 27.08.2(X)8, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Kondagaon, District Bastar, in Claim Case No. 02/08. 2. The claimant, being father of deceased Ku. Neeta Dubey, filed a claim case under Section 1 66 of the Motor Vehictes Act (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs. 10, 68,000/- for the death of his daughter in the accident occurred on 05.10.2007 at about 2:00 P.M. at village Hirri, on the ground thatshe fell down from the Tractor Trolley bearing registration No. CG-04-DA-1380 due to rash and negligent driving by the Driver of the vehicle. It was further stated that hermonthly income was Rs. 2SXX)/- as labour. 3. The Tribunal, wlthout considering the status of the appellant and further whether the dweased was contributing even to some extent for expenses incurred by her father in running the family, \ came to straightway conclusionthat deceased was not dependant 4. on the claimant, therefore, he was not entitled to any compensation. The Tribunal without recording proper evldence straightwray came to the conclusion in a cryptic and casual manner that the claimant/appellant was not dependant on the deceased daughter. Indisputably, the clalmant was the father of the deceased Ku. Neetu Dubey and she died due to accident occurred on 05.10.2007. The Tribunal has further not considered the fact that even if he was not dependent, he may be entitled to compensation under the provisions of Seetion 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV Act') for no fault liability. The Tribunal has not looked into that aspect also. (See Smt. Marquri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another1). Thus, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is unjust, improper and deserves to be quashed. Accordingty, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award dated 27.08.2008 is set aslde. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration under Sections 166 and 140 of MV Act afresh after affording opportunities to the parties to adduce their evidences, if any. The alleged accident took place on (».10.2007, thus, it is expedient that the claim may be decided in accordance with law, on its own merits, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The observations, if any, made hereinabove, shall not be construed as our opinion on merit. The Registry is directed to send back the papers, requisitioned Trom the Tribunal, forthwith. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri T^ Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge v^ d^.