INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR o M.A. NO.^MQ/ 2004 ^" ^ ^ APPELLANT APPLICANT ^- /2. ^o, •• /^.i-i'^ ...$^i"'t®?'y ^fe^s^ yte®?' Parmila W/o Prem'^Rs^f,' a^&ct abcid. aft^afjj^ ^<^sly^<^^^— Through Natural Guardian, Mother Pannila Both R/0 VUlage Gharghoda, Tahsil Gharghoda, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS A. and Meghnath S/o Matwar, Aged about 55 year, Occupation- Cultivation Transportation, R/0 ViUage Gharghoda, P.S. Gharghoda, Tahsil -Ghargiwda., District - Raigarh (C.G.) TheNew India Assurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office Sattigudi Chowk, Raigarh Tahsil and Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1998. \- ^ "B E ,-»* HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M.A. No. 440 of 2004 Appellaat Parmila & aaother Versus Respondents Megtuiath & another APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri. I. M. Quddusi & Honl3le Shri. Justice N. K. Agarwal, JJ Shri Neelkanth Malviya, Advocate for fhe appeUants. None for the respondent No. 1. Shri Neeraj Pradhaa, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. ORDER(Oral) ( Passed on this 25th day ofSeptember, 2010) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. Heard. This appeal arises from the award dated 19.12.2003, passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Clauns Tribiinal, Ra^arh in Claim Case No. 2/2001. The, brief facts, in nutsheU, are fhat fhe appeBants (widow and iniaor son, respectively, of deceased Premnafh) filed a claim case for award oftotel conipensation ofRs. 11,39,000/- under vanous heads on fhe ground fhat on 6.12.2000 when deceased Premnath was working ia the field aad driving fhe tractor, bearing registration No. M.P. 26-E/2773, the vehicle tumed turUe, In that accident Preianafh died. By fhe impugned award fhe claim of the appeUaxits has been rejected by the M.A.C.T. holdiug fhat the claiin petition was not inaiatainable as the accident was caused due to negligence of fhe deceased himsetf, who was driving the vehicle, which was uivolved iu the accident. There was no fault on the part of fhe owner of fhe vehicle. We have perused the lower Court record by which it reveals that the claiua petitioa was field by the claimants wifhout miehtioniTig any Section rafher Rule 220 (1) offhe M. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, ^gr-' 7. 8. 1994 has beea nientioned. Further, iu the order dated 3.9.2002 leanied M.A.C.T. concemed has refereed fhe Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act and opiued that no fault Uabilily conipensation uiider Section 163 (A) caa be given. Leamed counsel for the appeUaat has also subinitted fliat he waats to ruake a prayer that the claim petition be treated as under Section 163 (A) offhe MotorVehicles Act, 1988. Since nothing has been inentioned iu the claixn petition as to under which section fhe same was ffled, we are of the opiuioa that the inatter inay be reinanded back to fhe M.A.C.T. concemed and it wUl be open for fbie clatmaats to inake necessary amendxnent ia fhe claiiu petition. Therefore, we atlow this appeal in part, set aside fhe unpugned award dated 19.12.2003 and remit the matter to the M.A.C.T. coucemed fo decide afresh. It will be open for the appeUauts/claimants to niove an application for amendinent aad the Tribunal shall decide the claun afresh, after providin^ opportuiiity to fhe parties to adduce fhe additional further evidence, ifaay, afier restonag fhe clann petition. Accordiagly, the appeal is aUowed ia part to the above extent.No order as to costs. The Registry is directed to send back the papers, reqiiisitioiied froiu the Tribunal, forthwith. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K.Agrawa^ Judge •I i..." Thnlcm-