OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC.APPEAL (C) N0. •7-^0 / 2012 Oivisian Benck v. SS-'-^ ^ 'i "'l

f Smt. Sakun Bai Sahu, W/o Yogeshwar Sahu, aged about 36 years, 2) Gulshan Sahu, S/o Yogeshwar Sahu, aged about 16 years; Pushpendra, S/o Yogeshwar Sahu, aged about 14 years, Appellant No.2 8s 3 minor, through natural lian mother Sakun Bai, W/o ..nW^.^yguardian mother Srat. "3.$?J4- IJ.-^""ft,J3»ri£'" Yogeshwar Sahu, ^^^- Tehsil- Balod, District-Durg (C.G.) All are resident of Sanjay Nagar, Balod, VERSUS RESPONDENTS: 1) ^. Uttam Kumar Sahu, S/o Manrakhanlal ^ Sahu, R/o Kashi, P.S. Dandilohara, Tahsil Dandilohara, District- Durg (C.G.) Owner of the vehicle 2) T>' ETm^cL^ rTiviftinnteiI Manager, Insurance Company Limited, Kamthi Line, 'Rajnandgaon, District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) The }AcJ^JwJL& jQnen±al I7,,^. \\ MISCELLANEOU&APPEAL UNDER SECTION-173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 Insurer of the vehicle HI©H©OOBSFOP CHHATTI8G&RH AT BILASPXJ^ MISC. API^AL (C) NQ, 730 OP 2012 APPELLANTS/ : SuiL Sakua Bai Saliu aud oilitas. Uttam Klunar Sahu aad anotjber, D.B: Hoi'Me StelAbbat Maaoliar gtetnre & Hoa'ble Shri G. Btinhainddin, JJ. BtISCELLAHBOUS APPESAL UHDZaa SBCTieai 173 OF •SXaB BIOTOR VBHICL^ ACT. 1988 Presents Sbri P.R. Pataukar, couasel ft>r fhe appeUants. ORAL ORDBR (Passed ®a7th day of Aagpst, 20isg Manohar Sawe. J. TIus appeal has bccjn filed l»y fhe appellauts/claimaats iinder Sectfon 173 crf tbe Motor Vehlctes Act, 1988 agaiust ti» asvwA dated 01-05-2012 passed by Addltuaal Motor AccMent Clauus Tflbunal, Batod, Distdct Duig (for ahort the Claiais Tribunalfm Claun Case No. 297/2011. By the unpn^ned award, leaiEued mantaer of fne Claiina 2. Tribiuial disuussed fhe petltion fited by the olauaau.ts laider 'the Act, Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (fofsltort, 19881.

So, the short question involyed ia tfais appeal is as to whefher the learaed member of the Claiins Tubunal was judjfi^ in di&Baissiag fhe appellauts' claua petltion filed •uadcr Section 163-AoftheAct, 1988.

The appellaats bad filed a claica petition uader SectioB. 163- A of the Act, 1988 claiuung couipensatioii for fhfi death ofo.nc Yogeshwar Saliu who died la a vehicular aecldent oa 15-05-2011. The lcarned member of the Claiin.s Tribunal however disinissed fhc claim petition essentiatly on the ground fhat since the yearly incoine of Rs.40,000/- aad therefore, fhe claiua petttion was hald as aot maiataiaable for its decisloii oi}. its lu.erits. the deceased Yogeshwar Sahu was nioae aS ,y ^"%, <"s%. gtessiysis-i :,ts.»-.- '^:; "''_^-'~"" '^'': ^&^i?'??-?-"'''"'^^ v VSSS-'-^ ^ 'i "'l&,..>-.Xs<" ^ ^ y Ia our opitiiou, ia a sitaatioa aj'isiiag ia a case of tTija iiatiu'e 5. aad keepiag iu vjew tiie prcwaious conlsaiaed uader Section 167 of the Act, 1988 coupled wifh. tlie law laid dowu by fte Supreine Co-art in the case of Mngumma and anofher »s, l7attBd AaeUa' AisareBice Cwmpewy UsmteSf reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710, we do aot find any tegal ttttpediment lu grarttiug liberty to ihe appellajuts (Claimauts) to ftle the claim pctMou iinder Sectioa 166 of the Acrt, 1988 scelciug coxapensatfan for the death of Yogeshwat Sahu, before tfae coucerned Claims Tribunal uotwithstandiag ctaim petitiou as beiug iiiot dismissal of Section 163-A, uialutaiuable. Indeed, the appeBauts could hawe beeu grauted liberiytoy ^e 6. Claims Tribujial itself wben It procecded to disauss tbe claiiu petition under Section 16S-A of fbie Act, 1988 as toeu^ not maintaiaable due to claimants exceediag the inoaetaiy Unuts prescribed in. fhe Scliedule appending to the Act applieable to clauu petition filed under Section 163-A ibid. To conplude though we are disiaissiug fhe appeal ia Bmine 7. but cousider it just aad proper aad lu the late rest of justfce to grant liberty to the appeUaats to file a clauu petitton under Secttou 166 of the Act, 1988 before the concerned Claurfs Tribunal fi>r ^^.-- Glainung coaipensatiou fer the death of Yoge&hwaf Sahu 011 the same cause of action on which the claim pelltiou under Sectiau 163-A out ofwbich ttus appeal arises was filed by the appeUaats.

We however, do uot consider it necessaiy to issue auy aotice of fbis appeal to the respoadents vAuie passing tlife oniei' beeaiise iii substance we tiave upheU the impugned award aud secoadly ftie observations made above do uot adwersety affect respondents.

No cost. Em Sd/- Abhay Manohar Sapre Judge G. Sdl- Judge r