The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, specifically regarding the prescribed income limit for compensation eligibility.

JUDGMENT :

1. By consent of both parties, First Appeal is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

2. This appeal has been filed to challenge the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 05.05.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baramati under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short “the said Act”) dismissing Claim Application No.117 of 2009 filed by the appellants. The appellants have filed the original application under Section 163A of the said Act for grant of compensation of Rs.4,68,500/-. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial court held that the application was not tenable under Section 163A of the said Act.

3. Appellants (original- applicants) are legal heirs of deceased Kailas Vithal Nanaware who met with an unfortunate accident while driving Indica Car bearing registration No. MH-12-DG-3426 on 10.03.2009, while he was on his way from Pune to Solapur at Pune Solapur highway. Deceased was 30 years old on the date of the accident. It has been brought on record before the trial court that deceased was receiving salary of Rs.6,000/- per month as he was working as driver with City Trupati Travels, Pune and in addition thereto had an annual agricultural income of Rs.1,00,000/-, hence his salary was computed as Rs.1,72,000/- per annum. Claim of appellant was for total compensation of Rs.4,68,500/- before the trial court. Before the trial court original applicants did not file any other claim. Mr.Kadam, learned counsel for appellants submits that appellants had lodged their claim under Section 163A of the said Act before the trial court. Issue framed by the trial court relating to compensation was as under :

“Whether applicants are entitled for compensation if yes, from whom and to what extent?”

3.1. Other issues as framed by trial court are not relevant.

4. Trial court in so far as the issue of compensation is concerned, in the impugned judgment held as under :-

“9] It may be stated that applicant filed instant application under section 163-A of M.V.Act. Needless to say that applicants themselves have specifically averred in their application in para no. C that deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as a salary and Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. However, they have not restricted their claim to the extent of Rs.40,000/- annual income of the deceased. Though, applicant No.3 has filed her affidavit at Ex.23, wherein she has also reiterated the same income of the deceased. Thus, it is crystal clear that applicants are claiming that deceased was earning Rs.1,72,000/- per annum, but they have not restricted their claim to the extent of Rs.40,000/- being annual income of the deceased. Ld. Adv. For the applicant has relied upon the authority in the matter of Haseena Sulthana and others Vs. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. and another, reported in 2007 ACJ 1832. I have carefully gone through the said authority. The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court observed in para no. 14 and 16 as under -

“14. The other important differences between sections 163-A and 140 of the Act is that under the latter only a fixed amount is payable and in respect of former the amount is payable under a structured formula basis which prescribed the upper income limit of Rs.40,000 per annum. Therefore, if the income of the deceased or the victim exceeds Rs.40,000 per annum, he will not be in a position to file claim petition under section 163-A of the Act. Hence, the issue no.3 framed above is answered in the negative.”

“16. Therefore it is clear that even if the person with high income notionally brings down his income to Rs.40,000, his claim petition under section 163-A can be entertained.”

10. In the case in hand, applicants have specifically come with a case that deceased was earning Rs.1,72,000/-. However, they have not restricted their claim to the extent of Rs.40,000/- being annual income of the deceased. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the said authority is applicable to the present case. Therefore