IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATHSGARH MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL N0.- /<"3^ OF 2005 (MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEmCLES ACT, 1988) APPELIANTS GIAIMANTS y\. 'o^"'. '•l.'" ^ yw *'/ .* ^- RESPONDENTS NON-CLAIMANTS ^ ^t: Smt. Meena Yadav aged about40years W/o Late Kanhiya Yadav ^2. Ku. Manisha, aged about 14 years, D/o Late Kanhiya Yadav 3. Ku. Manjusha , aged about 12 years, D/o Late Kanhiya Yadav ,4. Abhijeet Kumar Yadav, aged about 09 years, S/o Late Kanhiya Yadav [ Appellant No. 2, 3 & 4 being minor, on behalf of through them legal - Guardian mother the appeUantNo.l] AU the Resident of- Shitla Para, Ward No. 15, Nayapara, Police Statioa Nayapara, District - Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1< .2.7 The Secretary , Water Resource Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Mantralaya Bhawan, Raipur , Tehsil & District - Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Raipur, Tehsil & Disfirict - Raipur (C.G.) MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECRON 173 OF THE MOTOR V^mCLESACT, 1988 Claim before the claim Tribunal Claim awarded by the claim Tribunal Claim fer Enhancement ofthe amounf/appeal Value as accordingly Rs. 33,50,0007- v^- Nil (Rejected the whole claim ofthe appellants ) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M._A^Np^ 1027_of 2005 Appellants Smt. Manki Bai 8s, others Versus Respondents The Secretary, Water Resource Departraent 85 another AND M. A.-_No._1028pf20Q5 Appellants Smt. Meena Yadav 8s others Versus Respondents The Secretary, Water Resource Departmeht & another APPEALUNDER_SECT!ON_173QF_THE MQTOR VEHICLES ACT,_ 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Akhil Agarwal, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. ORDERIQral) ( Pas.sed on this 4th day ofjanuary, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusl, J. Heard. Both these appeals (M.A. Nos. 1027 and 1028 of 2005) arise from the one and the same accident occurred on 7.4.2004, wherein the Marshal Jeep, having registration No. C.G. 02- 1695, owned by the Sfate of Chhattisgarh, met with an accident, as near village - Baska the vehicle got out of control and collided with a road side tree. In that accident the driver of the vehicle (Kanhaiya Yadav) and a person (Makhan Dhruv), who wap sitting as passenger with the consent of the driver of the vehicle, died. Thus,^ both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. The, brief facts, in nutshell, are thatjegal heirs of the deceased Makhan Dhruv field a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 35,50,000/- u-nder various heads, which has been dismissed by the 10th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur by award dated 9.5.2005 passed in Claim Case No. 71/2004, holding that the deceased had no right to sit in the vehicle and he was unauthorizedly sitting in the vehicle. The legal heirs of the deceased Kanhaiya Yadav (driver of the vehicle) filed a claim case under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 33,50,000/- under various heads, which has been dismissed by the 10th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur by award dated 11.5.2005 passed in Claim Case No. 70/2004, holding that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself and the legal heirs i.e. widow ofthe deceased is getting family pension. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the pEirties and perused the lower Court records. In M.A.No. 1027/2004 the deceased was traveling in the Government Jeep with the consent of the driver of the vehicle. The Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claira petition on the sround that the deceased was not entitled to travel in fhe Goveminent Jeep as he was not a goyernment servant. Therefore, the claimants/legal heirs of the deceased are not endtled for compensation from the State Government. In that regard we are of the opinion that if the deceased was allowed to sit in the jeep and travel by any officer/employee of the Government and he was traveling in the Government Jeep, in case of accident the master is responsible for the act of its officer/employee, who allowed to travel in the Jeep and therefore the State Govemment is responsible to pay the corapensation. In M...A.NO. 1028/2004 the claimants are the legal heirs of the driver, who died in the accident and the claim case has been dismissed by the '.'Eribunal on the ground that the funeral expenses were paid'by the State and the widow of the deceased driver is getting family pension but tHe amount of compensation to which the clainiants are entitled, has not been calculated. If any benefit has been given to the widow by the I'ff't" rjiii'i^"'M !^i1;i^ ';ffi!l: isffin Government which is lesser than the amount of compensation which was to be awarded, the difference of the same is liable to be paid to the claimants, after making the assessment. 7. In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case to rerait both the matters to the Tribunal to decide afresh in the light of the observations made herein above. 8. Therefore, we allow both the appeals in part, set aside the impugned award dated 9.5.2005 and 11.5.2005 and remit the matters to the Tribunal for decision afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove. 9. The Tribunal shall decide the cases on merits, afresh, after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties to adduce further evidence, amend pleadings, file documents or get the documents verified etc. 10. The parties may appear before the Tribunal concerned on 8thFebmary, 2011. 11. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed in part to the above extent. No order as to costs. 12. The Registiy is directed to send back the papers, requisitioned from the Tribunal, forthwith. "SdT.." • ; .. .-^-.-„..-..^^-- I.M. Quddusi Judge Judge Sd/- Tbakur