MAHADEV SAHU Vs. YOGESHWAR @ YADRAM SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been preferred at the instance of the Claimants who had approached the 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short, 'the Tribunal') seeking compensation in respect of the death of the person concerned in a road traffic accident. Grievance is against the dismissal of the claim petitions {except granting 'no-fault compensation' of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act')} observing that the claim was not maintainable under Section 163A of the the Act in view of the higher annual income of more than Rs. 40,000/-.

(2.) The undisputed facts reveal that the deceased, namely Rashmi Sahu and Smt. Moksh Kumari Sahu were travelling alongwith other close relatives in a Maruti Van bearing Registration No. CG 04 B 5864 which was being driven by the 1st Respondent (close relative), owned by the 2nd Respondent and insured by the 3rd Respondent. At the place of occurrence, there was an open unmanned level cross, and allegedly because of the brake failure, the vehicle could not be stopped and almost crossed the level cross. It was in the meanwhile, that a Railway Engine came through the track and dashed against the rear side of the van causing fatal injuries leading to death of five passengers (including a child) on the spot and death of another child while undergoing treatment at the hospital.

(3.) The claim petition was filed before the Tribunal seeking compensation in terms of Section 163A of the Act. In the case forming the subject matter of MA(C) No. 607 of 2014, it was contended that the deceased was having a monthly income of Rs. 3500/-, whereas in the other case i.e. MA(C) No. 609 of 2014, the monthly income of the deceased was stated as Rs. 4000/-. Observing that the admitted monthly income being above Rs.40,000/- per annum, the claim petitions were held as not maintainable under Section 163A in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Deepal Girish Bhai Soni v. United India Insurance Company Ltd, 2004 5 SCC 385 and accordingly, they were dismissed which led to MA(C) No. 4 of 2011 (arising out of Claim Case No. 187 of 2009) and MA(C) No. 2 of 2011 (arising out of Claim Case No. 190 of 2009) before a Division Bench of this Court in the earlier round of litigation. Dismissal of the claim petition was also with reference to the fact that the 1st Claimant (in MAC No. 609 of 2014) had performed a re-marriage. A Bench of this Court observed that the Tribunal ignored the fact that there were three Claimants among whom, the 1st Claimant was the husband of the deceased whereas, the other two were minor children. If the father had performed second marriage, the children would be more in need of the compensation, and as such, it could not have been a ground for the Tribunal to reject the claim. With regard to the dismissal of the claim petition because of the higher income, this Court observed that if the claim petition was not maintainable under Section 163A of the Act, it could have been treated as a claim under Section 166 or under Section 140 of the Act, after seeking option of the Claimants. It was accordingly that the impugned awards were set aside and the appeals were allowed in part remitting the matters back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in the light of the observations.