LLE v. ENTS

S/o Late Shri Bachnan Singh, Aged about 63 years, R/oVillage-Mactna, Tehsil- Pendra Road, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Appellant is Claimant) Shyam Lal Agrawal, S/o Balkishan AgrawQl, Aged about 40 years, R/o Gandhi Chowk, Gaurella, Tehsil-Pendra Road, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Owner of the offending vehicle} ^?;- Z Ramadhar Jaiswol, S/o Shri Vindeshwari Prasad, Aged about 40 years, R/o Old Gaurelta, Tehsil- Pendra Road District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Owner of the offending vehicle) MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 INTHEMAT1 ^PPELLANT ^ -KvQ ^^y' VERSUS ,A^' ^&' ^ RespondentNo.l ri Pawan Kumar Agrawal, £BS^S^.?upa=TS-"rente Disteict- BUaspur (C.G.) - ^ i^ ^^ ^ MEMOR^ Arising o 'Gaikwac Rodd, Di; i 1. Cl C< 2f -3,- 4p The apF followin( ^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAIVS: HON'BLE Dr. I.M. QUDDUSI & HON'BLE SHRI GKULAM IVSINHAJUDD!N. JJ 3Vi. A.(C).No. 334 OF 2011 APPELLANT Harwinder Sing^ Vs. RESPONDENTS Smt Ratna Agrawal and another Present Mr. Ankit Singhal, counsel for the appeiiant. Mr. Prateek Sharma, counsei for respondent No.1 Mr. Amit Kumar, counsel for respondent No.2. Per Dr. I.M. QUDDUSS. J Heard. Order fOral) (20.03.2012) *; ^-

#2. This appeai has been fiied by the claimant against the Impugned award dated 27.11 .2010 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai (FTC), Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G) (for short 'the C!aims Tribunsl") in Clalm Case No. 11/2009 dismissing the daim petltion of the ciaimant.

#3. Brief facts of the case, as per the version of the claimant, are that on the date of incident i.e. 13.01.2008, deceased NirmaE Ssngh @ RikKi, aged about 20 years accompanied by one Antim JaiswaE, nephew of respondent N o.2 herein to village Taraigaon in a motor cycle bearing registration No. C.G.10/9642, owned by respondent no.1 herein, and met with an accident whife he was returning on N 2 - the way at about 9.30 a.m. At the reievant tlme, deceased was working as a motor mechanic and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by repajring motor vehicies. The ciaimant being dependent father /iegal representative, filed ciaim petition u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the award of compensation to the tune of Rs.51,50,000/- -. \ under various heads. The Claims TribunaJ after hearing the parties jn the matter and considering the material on record, dtsmissed the claim petition of the claimant on the ground that the same is not maintainabie. * •^;- We have heard learned counse! the parties and perused the records. As per provisions of Scheduie-2 of Section 163-A of the Act an injured person or the dependents ofthe deceased, in case of death, having an income of more than Rs.40,000/- cannot flle a cJaim petition under Section 163- A of the Act as the same Js a speciai provision which has been enacted for grant of immediate reiief to a section of peopie whose annual income is not more than Rs.40,000/. Further, is a social security scheme, which is a comprehensive scheme, the purpose of grant of adequate compensation to a section ofvictims who wouid require the amount df compensation without fighting any protracted iltigation for proving that the accident occurred ^r'^ %... ^e^ -rz -- owing to negligence on the part of the driver of the motor vehicie or any other fauit arising out of use of a motor vehicie. Therefore, while granting compensation, Cjaims Tribunai Is required to adjudlcate upon the disputed questlon as regards age and income of the deceased or the victim, as the case may be. In case of Deeosi Gmshbhas SQni snd others vs. ,^f Indla insisrance Co. Ltd., Baroda reported in (2004) 5. Supreme Court Cases 385, the Hon'bie Apex Court has heid in paragraph-67 as under:- "We, therefore, are of the opinion that Kodaia has correctty been decided..^owever, w@ do not agree with the findings in Kodala that if a person invokes provisions of Section 163-A, income of Rs.40,000/- per annum the annual shall be treated as a cap. fn our oplnion, proceeding under Section 163-A being a social secunty provision, providing for a dsstinct scheme, only those whose annual Income is up to Rs.40,000/- can take the benefit thereof. Alf other claims are requlred to be determined in terms ofchapterXfl ofthe Act"

#8. in view of the above dlscussion, we are of the opinion that the ciaim petition was not maintainabie at all on the ground that the d.eceased was having an Income of more than Rs.40,000/- per annum. No other point is ijable to be considered at this stage,. therefore, the appeai fails and is /• accordingiy dismissed. However, this wil! not debar the ^•fsTS^^\ ^' .^^, ^%> u "^. '^^.~s^' ^^./' (A ^ ciaimant to approach the appropriate forum as we are of the opinion that the claimant should not be left remediless jn case the ciaim petition under Section 163-A of the Act was not maintajnable. No order as to costs^ Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Priya Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge ^ •^-•- z^