IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR fc.G.) OivisionBandl MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL(C) N0. '2-Tt10F2010 . APPELLANTS ^. / l^-<. ^.^ ^^yw ' ...<"¥%^ ^- .-<» ' t.-/y •••I f->"\ ^•" \n/ Harish Kumar @ Hariram Sahu, S/o Late Pardeshi Ram Sahu, aged about32 years, Smt. Rajni Bai, W/o Hariram Sahu, aged about28 years, Both are Resident of Village Kurud, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSU s RESPQNDENTS ^7 Jawahar Thakur @ Johar, S/o K.R. Thakur, aged abouf43 years, R/o Chunkatta, Post Selud, Police Station Utai, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) Ajay Singh, S/o Jaggu Sihgh, aged about not known, R/o Chunkatta, Post Selud, Police Station Utai, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) 3./^Mational Insurance Company Limited, Branch No. - 1 Bhutani Complex G.E. Road Power House Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) Claimed before Tribunal Rs;5,20,000/- AmountawardedbythelearnedTribunal : Nil Claimed in this Memo of Appeal • : Rs. 5,20,000/- The appellant has re-assessed the claim value in the instant appeal on the basis ofthe evidenceand the rnaterial available on the record as well as hjs income. MISCELLANEOUSAPF'EALUNDERSECTlON 173 OFTHE MOTORVEHICLE ACT. 1988 fo HIGHCQURTQFCHHft1"nse«RM^TBll.ASRUR DlfflSli&N BENCtt: :'.:«©N'tl-ElMIRaiM.i@yDBU.St.&:,,,:-^ HON'Bl.EMR.N«^^itNI^HC^r^6fcRWAL.J^ ADDellants ResDondents I.A.fd N0.274/261 tt 1-larish Kuinar @ Harriram Sahu Vs Jawaliar Thakur @ ^ohar and otfters':;:'^'''';~v':.':''..'' ^ ':" Present: '.• .: ;;' . . : ::;••-.::::''.':^:;;!:: ::'^: |iV|r;Aditya;Kyrnar,A<^twatefbriKeapR^ Mr? B.N; Nande, Adyocate fortheresp6ndentNo.3. ;i"6 te ORBER^arall '';:.' . {27v'IWa»st,W/iO) ?;' ::.::i~ •! 1:'':: '''"'• ; •' t.W. Quddusi. ^ '• ••:.:• . ' .•.-•'•''•'• ' 1.1'he appellants hay&ifjle^ thjs appea^agamst the a 16.02.20t0 p^ssedm,C|8tiro^a^$%^ learned Motor ^eN^lsn^ ^^ni^^i-tlii^ ' Tej:ected';:ffiS^laimig^|^o|fi]^|t3%:l|^^^tlan^ ', • • •' 2. Bii-ief,^a®fs50'flffi?e?«ssS:3T»S^I'i!afcon 25.2.2009 the deeeased C(ra^ttyra^SKhaS|Ss|l|B,l:whSs^s spn .c^ was returhing;to his nom^^^ pne Vikas @ ehlioturam ^wasthj^ W Ganpati Press, a truek hearm^ ^ 9021, driven rashly & nefll^ dashed; their bicy&le a< a r6su^^^ eame undeFthe trutik arrd dje^fl account ofc (jeaffi of their sori^ ha^^^^^^ RS.5y20,000/-^on varittus^&ds ^ c bel6waftertiearjng1:he^tarties^ftlh&,hi^e^^^^^ / material ayailable on|recx)r)dgdismisse appellants )on the grpundWat the apj»eltai»ts^^ negligence 6n the part ofthe non-appfffeant Np.l-driv 3. We have heard learned counsel^or th^^ jmpygned award as atsofhe'rM&Fd^^^^ 4. TKe clajms^ribunal has cansj^er^ foynd that the aRpellan^ took .plaGe dyfl to nsgli^n^l on^^^ No.l-driser and thefefore. they ac&^^^^ro , 81s3W"S >SBWBHHiros!slsiS;|BKS:?a^^ 1-: Rosl'iari/L cornpensation, but tfte questipn regarding 'no fault liability'has not been considered bythe claims tribunal. 5. Sectjon 140 (4) of the lUlotor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the above regard isliable to be perused, which is quoted herein below:- "(4) A claim for compensatjon undersub-sectipn (1) shaiF not be defeated by reason of any WTongful act, neglect or default oftfte person in respeet of whose death or permanCT^ djsiablement the claim has been made nor shall the quantum of, compen sation FecoveraMe in respecfr of such death or perma n ent clisat? 1emeht be reduced on the basjs of ttte share of such person in tlTe responsibility for such death or permanent disablement." 6. In yiew of the above, the claiins trjbunal should have considered the question of grant oif 'ho fault liafailjty' to the appellants. Accordinglyy we arejof the opinion that the requires reconsidei'atjOTi on roerjt as well as on the questionof igrant of no faultliabjljty. , 7. In the result, theappeal succeeds. The impugned award dated 16.2.2010 passed in Claim Case No.92/09 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Chief Additional Motor Accident Clairris Tribunal, Dhamtari for reconsideration. The claim petition of the ap|>ellant? herein shall be restored and decided afresh without being tnfluehced by the award in questjpn, which has been set aside by this oryw. It will be dpen for the partjes to adduce additjonal.evidence in support of their respective cases, tftheyclesireso. ^ 8. Registry is directed to^ transmit record of the clajms trjbunal^ concerned without further delay. 9. Certified copy as per rules, -Sd/- DR. I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K.AgarwaI Judge