^T-\\~- '^^s^^-v- ^f*ssS'^-.^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPEAL U/S 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 /^^NO. 1^^,09 ^ APPELLANTS APPLICANTS kd^ 2 ^VV^o,^ ^K£^";..' ^-i^ 3 ^ ^^ "^' ^' Smt. Kusum Pandey W/o Late Kamal Kumar Pandey, Aged about 40 years Ku. Renu Pandey, Aged about 20 years Ku.Manisha Pandey, Aged about 17 years Ku.Shraddha Pandey, Aged about 15 years Ku.Nisha Pandey, Aged about 11 years 6^-' Prajjwal Pandey, Aged about 9 years No.3 to 6 are minors acting through natural guardian mother Smt.Kusum Pandey. No.2 to 6 dau^hters and'son of late Kam.al Kumar Pandey Lal Devi Pandey Widow of Late 5. 7: Ram Lakhan Pandey, Aged about 67 years ^l- ff r; @ ^ Versus RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS All R/o Shiv Dhari Colony, Ambikapur, Tahsil - Ambikapyr, Distt. Surguja-(C.G.) 1.,- Ram Asharya Singh S/o Rama Shankar Singh, Aged about 47 years, (Owner of Jeep No.CG-lS/ZD-2759), R/o High School Road, Ambikapur, Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja- .i^, o. _ 2. Branch Manager, The Oriental \4<^'-"^ ^^n " 3&,6^y«C" —" —^&^,— ^. .^ cftiJ^ ft{^yfo/e0f T- 5-&7»°»-e^;j Insurance Company Ltd., ^ ^I^A-. - Jo,or,&vro ^" Ambedkar Chowk, Banaras Road ^/^ Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja-(C.G.; APPEAL U/S_173 QF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A (C) No.1332/2009 APPELLANTS Smt. Kusum Pandey and others Versus RESPONDENTS Ram Asharya Singh and others DB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL & HON'BLE SHRI R.L. JHANWAR. JJ PRESENT:- Shri Badruddin Khan, Advocate for the appellants. Ku. Pushpa Dwivedi, Advocate, for the respondent No. 2. ORAL ORDER (16-11-2010) Per N.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This is claimants appeal against the award dated 25-7- 2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sarguja (Ambikapur) in Claim Case No.19/2007. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 12-11-2006 in the night Kamal Kumar Pandey (since deceased) was returning to Ambikapur along with his vehicle owner Ramashray Singh and his employees by driving Jeep bearing registration No. GG 15 ZD/2759 owned by respondent No. 2 and the said jeep raet with an accident and in the said accident, said Kamal Kumar Pandey lost h'is life. The claimants being wife, children and mother filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (briefly the Act') claiming Rs. ),05,000/- as compensation for the death of -the deceased. 3. Leamed Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the submissions made, evidence led and material placed, dismissed the ' claim petition, also directed claimant to refund Rs. 50,000/- to the Insurance Company on the ground that , the deceased himself was negligent in driving the jeep. c\ \ -^Si -:"" l* ^^Si^ 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that even if the deceased himself was negligent in driving the vehicle, he is at least entitled for Rs. 50,000/- as provided under Section 140 of the Act and direction of the Tribunal regarding refund of Rs. 50,000/- awarded in favour of the claimant under Section 140 of the Act is perse illegal and deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Ku. Dwivedi, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 supported the award. 6. We have. perused the award impugned and record of the Tribunal. 7. In order to appreciate the contention raised by appellant's counsel, it would be appropriate to refer Section 140(4) of the Act which reads as under:- "A claun for compensation under sub-section (1) shaU not be defeated by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default of the person in respect of whose death or permanent disablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of compensation recoverable in respect of such death or permanent disablement be reduced on the basis of the share of such person in the responsibility for such death or permanent disablement." 8. In view of the provisions of Section 140(4) of the Act, even if the deceased himself was negligent, the claimants are entitled to compensation for no-fault. Therefore, the direction to refund the amount of Rs. 50,000/- is not sustainable in law. The appellants are not required to refund the amount awarded to them under no fault under Section 140 of the Act. 9. Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent that the Insurance Company shall'not be entitied to recover the amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the claimants awarded under no fault to the claimants. 10. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge 0 fe;'