The judgment emphasizes the specific class of persons eligible for benefits under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and highlights the discretionary power of the Tribunal to allow conversion of claim petitions.

1. The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the last date. Considering the controversy involved, the appeal was taken up for final hearing at admission stage. Today the appeal is kept for dictation of the judgment.

2. The appellant Insurance Company has taken an exception to the judgment and award dated 30th March, 2007 passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Beed. The first to third respondents herein are the claimants who filed a claim petition invoking section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act.)

3. According to the case of the claimants, the 4th respondent is the owner of the truck which was validly insured with the appellant on the relevant date. The case of the claimants is that deceased was an employee of one Deelip Kishanlal Munot drawing salary of Rs.4000/- p.m. On 9th September, 2004, the deceased was looking after the construction site of his employer. At that time, paved flooring stones were brought to the construction site by the offending truck. The deceased was supervising the work of unloading the said stones. At that time, deceased was standing near the truck . Suddenly some paved flooring stones fell on the person of the deceased from the truck. He was crushed under the said stones. After he was taken to the hospital, he was declared as dead.

4. The claim petition was resisted by the appellant insurer. Various contentions were raised by the appellant insurer. The first contention was that the accident had occurred at a private place owned by the alleged employer of the deceased. According to the appellant, the driver of the truck was not holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time. The claim petition has been allowed by granting compensation of Rs. 3,91,000/- and interest at the rate of 9% p.a. The appellant insurer was held liable to satisfy the award.

5. Various submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant on merits relating to liability of the appellant. Apart from all the submissions on merits, the learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the averments made in the claim petition filed by the claimants in which they claimed that the monthly income of deceased was Rs. 4000/-. He invited my attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Baroda [(2004) 5 S.C.C.385]. Relying upon the ratio of the said decision, he submitted that the remedy under section 163-A is available only to a distinct class. He submitted that the said remedy is confined to those whose annual income is upto Rs. 40,000/-. He pointed out the assertion made in the affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of the first claimant in which it was reiterated that the income of the deceased was Rs. 4000/- p.m. He submitted that the claim petition under section 163-A was not maintainable and only on this ground, the impugned award deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the original claimants placed reliance on various judgments including a judgment of a Full Bench of Karnataka High Court in the case of Guruanna Wadi and another vs. General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and another [2001 (3) T.A.C.329 (Kant)]. He submitted that the claimants can always notionally bring down the income of the deceased to Rs. 40,000/- per year and in such event, a claim under section 163-A can be entertained. He submitted that in the present case, the claimants had notionally brought down the income of deceased for bringing the case within the purview of section 163-A. He submitted that in any event, there is a finding recorded by the Tribunal that the claimants failed to establish that the income of the deceased was Rs. 4000/- p.m. He pointed out that infact the