B^TTs J^r-JW^-yStJW^^M^^JlJk/^nAf.L^?J IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 M. A. fC) N0. i-^-^_QF^QQ7 APPELLANT CLAIMANT Puranikram Dhurv Son of Shri Kartikram Dhruv, aged about 30 years, Occupation Driver, Resident of Village Kodebod, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^0-' A^ ^:'--^; ^y: ^^y.. ^^" yy' ,.r 2. > ^ 1; Rajaram Son of Late Dayaram Sahu, aged about 33 yeiii-s, OccLipation Driver, Resident of Near Gurudwara, Navapara, Gobra (Rajim), District Raipur (Driver of offending vehicle). Roshanlal Son of Shri Sunderdas Jivnani, aged about 40 years, Occupation Businessman, Resident of Sindhi Colony, Navapara, Police Station Gobid Navapara, District Raipur (C.G.). r,r 3. The Branch Manager, Through: The New India Insurance Company • Limited, Jail Road, Raipur (Policy No. 45/800/31/05/01/000/14589, upto 09.01.2006 to 10.01.2007, insurance company vehicle No. C.G.-04/ZB/1850). 1i;^i ffiBIBBBflSIKII :\'. '•': ;,;:?':'.^ '- ', •::::"'-'-''.~?<:1 ^ ^1-!. ..r^^.^^/'..~-^^".?..~^^'V^.<:^<^^".^'n^.^.^n"<Ti^-^^^-^?.Y?.a"^:T^Si>;'~t."'-?-' •<' \;^.^—•;': .; ' ;,. ^<-"^e'^^^'-^'^^f, ^••'••^i^ MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT; 1988 ^^-' '\- ^>-i*dis. 'BLE MB^ I.w.QUES&US: Puranikram Dhurv Vs Rajaram & others P.P. Sahu, Advocate for the cppeliant. UasnraTn &upTa, Aavocate ror The respondenT No.d. ."n -sth *•. * 1. Heard. 2. The appeliant has fiied this appeai against the award dated 30.8.2007 passed by the learned 9+ Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunnl (FTC), Raipur (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.71/2007 dismissing the claim appiication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-claimant has filed a ciaim -dpplication before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensoition to tiie tune of fts.5,70,000/- for the permanent disability sustained by him in an accident which took p!ace on 15.12.2006 at about 3.15 p.m. when vehicie of the Qppellanl- bearing reglstration number C604-J-5380 was dashed by the driver of Matador bearing registration C604-Z8-1850 resultina in amputation of right hcnd of the qapellnnt. The appellant claimed compensation on the ground that on accpunt of amputation of his hand,he has sustained ioss of earning capacity. 4. We have heard learned counsei for the parties and perused the impugned award as also records of the Claims Tribunal. ). In the instant case, the injured claimant himSelf has stated before the Claims Tribunal that there was no fault on the part of driver of the offending vehicle and accordingly, the Claims Tribunal uide impugned award dismlssed the claim aDDlication of the claimant on the qround that there was no negtigence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. However, if there was no negligence on the par-t of the driver of offending vehicie then the application under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 would not be maintainable and the Claims Tribunal ought to have dismissed the ciaim application as such. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the q?peiiant submits that the appellant may be permitted to convert the claim application to that of under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988. 7. Perusal of the claim application shows that in the application it has been < mentioned tiiat the ciaimant was earning Rs.200/- per day by driying the vehicle but it has not been mentioned that as to for how many days he was driving the vehicle and therefore monthly income of the claimant is not certain and even the same is not described anywhere. 8. In the result, we hold that the claim application filed by the claimant before the Claims Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 was not maintainable ouid it is dismissed as such. However, with an intention that the appellant may not be deprived of his rightful ciaim, we grant libert/ to him to file a fresh claim application under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988. ^It will also be open for 1+ie appellant to opproach the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 cum Labour Court concerned and for 1+iat purpose it is to be noted that the claim petition was filed on 19.3.2007 and was dismissed by the Ciaims Tribunal on 30.8.20074 and •t+iereafter this appeal was filed on 6.11.2007, which has been decided by thisorder. No order as to costs. 9. Certified copy as per rules. Roshan/- Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge K