Remanded

Smt Neerabai and Ors. v. Mathanlal and Another

Chhattisgarh HC9 Feb 2012MAC/346/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous appeal, the High Court allowed the appellants challenge against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award dismissing their compensation claim. Relying on a Supreme Court judgment, the court held that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim based on the deceased's negligence and remanded the matter for a fresh decision after allowing evidence.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; impugned award set aside; matter remitted to Tribunal for fresh decision after affording due opportunity to both parties to lead evidence.

Smt Neerabai and Ors. Vs Mathanlal and Another — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

.,iiR»»- s&»^®»BBBaB®

¶2

IN THFHIGH COURT OF^{JUDICATUREATBILASPURfC.G.I} o M.A. (0 /2009

¶3

APPELLANTS : 'tLAIMANTS

¶4

.•^s^ <; ^- fTE?iB^° ^p^ aS^--'' .^

¶5

^ ' l.,.Smt. Neerabai Wd/o Late Virendra ^"^^ ^ • Kumar Singore, aged. about. .„27 years, Occupation : Housewife 2,. Ku. Manisha D/o Late Virendra Kumar Singore, aged about 10 years, Minor !..- Ku. Divya D/o Late Virendra Kumar Singore, aged about 08 years, Minor 4. Ku. Vadani D/o Late Virendra Kumar ^-" Singore, aged about 08 years, Minor 'Feruram S/o Gadaram Singore, aged about 52 years 6.^Shubham Singore S/o Late Virendra Kumar Singore, aged about 08 Months, (Minor) Appellant No. 2, 3, 4 &6 are minor through legal guardian mother Smt. Neerabai, appellant No. 1. All R/o Village Khamhariya, Post Sankara, Chowki Kumhari, Thana Bhilai3, District Durg (C.G.)

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

RESPQNDENTS_ • • NON-APPLICANTS

¶8

Mathanlal S/o Maganlal R/o Near Burger Bite, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur,Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through : Divisional Manager, Divisional Office : Kutchery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur

¶9

(Chhattisgarh)

¶10

Miscellanceous Appeal under Sectiorr'173 of the Motor Vehicle Act,_1994

¶11

'-^ncLAckU..

¶12

HIGH COURT QFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶13

M.A.CNo. 346 of 2009

¶14

APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS

¶15

Smt. Neera Bai and others.

¶16

VERSUS

¶17

RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS

¶18

Mathanlal and another.

¶19

(APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT)

¶20

(SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal, J.l

¶21

Present : Shri A.L.Singraul, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶22

ORAL AWARD

¶23

(Passed on 09.02.2012)

¶24

¶25

This is claimants' appeal against the award dated 30.09.2008 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No.06/2008.

¶26

¶27

As per the appellants, i.e. widow and minor children, on 23.07.2004 Virendra Kumar Singour (since deceased) was going on his motor cycle to Uparawara. Near Mana Camp at National Highway No.6, the offending vehicle Minibus bearing registration No.C.G.04/E-0.133 dashed the motorcycle being driven by the deceased and he succumbed to injuries sustained in the said accident.

¶28

¶29

Claim petition was preferred by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').

¶30

¶31

The petition was dismissed by the Tribunal, finding inter alia, deceased Virendra Kumar himself was negligent.

¶32

Shri A.L.Singraul, learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently argued that while dismissing the claim petition, the Tribunal did not consider the judgment of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Deepal Glrishbhai Son; and others v. Unlted India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2004) 5 SCC 385 wherein the Supreme Court has observed in para - 66 of its judgment that Section 163-A of the Act covers cases where even negligence is on the pari: of the victim. Therefore, in view of above judgment, the case needs remand.

¶33

Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, on the other hand, supported the award and submitted: in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. 1 have heard the counsel appearing for the appellants and the records of the Tribunal including award perused impugned.

¶34

The Supreme Court in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra) in its judgment para 66 has held as under:

¶35

"66. We may notice that Section 167 of the Act provides that where death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to claim of compensation under the Act and also

¶36

^* /y ,1'" s '!!S&S:-::s^. l "^.y-% j "*!,. i^S^^

¶37

under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, he cannot claim compensation under both the Acts. The Motor Vehicles Act contains different expressions as, for example,^"under the provision of the Act",^"provisions of this Act", "under any other provisions of this Act' or "any other law or otherwise". In Section 163-A, the expression "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force" has been used, which goes toshow that Parliament intended to inseri: a non-obstante clause of wide nature which would mean that the provisions of Section 163-A would apply despite the contrary provisions existing in the said Act or any other law for the time being in force. Section 163-A of the Act covers cases where even negligence is on the part of the victim. It is by way of exception to Section 166 and the concept of social justice has been duly taken care of."

10..

No contrary decision has been pointed out by the respondent. Therefore, in view of above judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal could not have dismissed the claim petition on the ground of negligence of the victim.

¶42

For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal is allowed in part. The award impugned is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for deciding the appellants' claim afresh in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to the appellants to lead evidence. Needless to menfion the Tribunal shall provide proper and sufficient opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence and to file additional documents, if any.

¶43

¶44

5?*'^^. j% ^ / 'te<^:' -s^r

¶45

Record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith. Appellants are directed to appear before the concerned Claims Tribunal on 14.03.2012.

¶46

No order as to costs.

¶47

Sd/N.K. Agrawal Judge

Smt Neerabai and Ors. v. Mathanlal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Neerabai and Ors. v. Mathanlal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogehs and Others Vs Smt. Malti Verma and Another

Hol Sai Vs the Collector and Anr.

Smt.Trivedi Bai Lohar Vs Hemant Kumar Sharam and Anr.

Uderram Sahu Vs Parniya Bai Sahu and Anr.

Manoj Motwani Vs Darshan Kaur

Smt. Laxmi Bai Manikpuri Vs Itwari Kumar Kannoje