S.B v. Mahilange 85
Case at a glance
Outcome
Withdrawn
because the claim petition is dismissed as withdrawn for
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ss. 166, 173
Judgment
S.B.:HON»BLEMR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRB MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL (Ct N0. 690 OF 2007 APPELLANT CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS Bhojkumari 85 others VERSUS Mahilange 85 Posbram another And MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL (Ct N0. 679 OF.2007 APPELLANT United Company Limited India Insurance VERSUS RESPONDENTS Bhojkumari 8s others APPBAL UNDBR SECTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VEHICLESACT. 1988. Dewangan, Shri Govind appellants/claimants in M.A.(C) No; 690/2007. Shri Dashrafh appellant/Insurance Company in M.A.(C) No. 679/2007. Advocate Advocate Gupta, ORDER (or all (Passedon 14/02/2013) The decision rendered in this appeal { M.A.(C) No. (1) 690/2007) } shall also govem the disposal of appeal { (M.A.(C) No. 679/2007 } filed by the Insurance Company. is filed by the appellants/claimants (2) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short "the A(?t") against the award dated 20/03/2007 passed by thte Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District^- Janjgir Champa (in short "the Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No.
25/2006. ^ By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal partly (3) allowed the claim petition of the appellants/claimants under Section 163-A of the Act and awarded to them a total sum of Rs. 3,57,000/- by way of compensation for the death of one Milap. The appellants/claimants have filed this appeal for (4) enhancement of the amount of compensation. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and (5) perused the record of the case. opposition In appeal the leamed the submission of (6) appellants/claiinants counsel for the respondent No.2 (Insurance Company) was only one. Placing reliance upon the decis^on of Supreme Court reported in (2004) 5 SCC 385 (Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda), he contended that the claim petition filed by the claimants out of which this appeal arises was under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the same was not maintainable in the light of the averments made in the claim petition itself wherein claimants had alleged that the yearly income of the deceased was more than Rs.
40,000/- i.e. it was Rs. 1,80,000/- (Rs. 15,000/- per month). Learned counsel contented that a claim petition under Section 163-A can be filed only when the yearly income of the deceased is not beyond Rs. 40,000/- as specified in Schedule appended to the Act and since in this case it was beyond Rs. 40,000/- and hence it should have to be dismissed as not maintainable. (7) Having gone through the claim petition so also impugned finding, I am inclined to accept the submission of the leamed counsel for the respondent No.2 (Insurance Company) and accordingly inclined to dismiss this appeal. learned counsel appearing for the (8) At Ais stage, appellants/claimants prays for withdrawal of fhe appeal as also the Ylaim petition, with liberty to file a properiy constituted claim petition. w^y ^: / Having regard to the facts situation and keeping in (9) mind the benevolent provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, I pennit the appellants/claimants to withdraw the 1988, claim petition filed, out of which this appeal arises and represent it either under Section 163-A provided they wish to claim the compensation by alleging that deceased's yearly income was not more than Rs.
Operative part
40,000/- or to file claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for claiming compensation for the death of Milap. (10) Tribunal I m^fee it clear that findings recorded by the Claims in the impugned award shall not operate as res judicata against any party either on facts or in law because the claim petition is dismissed as withdrawn for being represented before the appropriate forum as per liberty granted by this Court to the claimants for claiming coinpensation arising out of the accident. It is with these observation and liberty, the appeal (11) stands disposed of. The impugned award is set-aside and claim petition is dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty granted aforesaid. In the light of the aforesaid observrations, the appeal (12) i.e. M.A.(C) No. 679/2007, which is in the nature of cross appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous without L. going into its merit. (13) The amount deposited by the Insurance Company in compliance to Section 173 proviso to Act for filing appeal i.e. M.A. ©No. 679/2007, be refunded to th©appellant. Sd/- Abhay Manohar Sapre Judge "hakur •\
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: because the claim petition is dismissed as withdrawn for
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — ss. 166, 173.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.