The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, the income threshold for claiming compensation, and the coverage of insurance policies for pillion riders.

JUDGMENT :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and awarded dated 7th March, 2007 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1st Court, Suri, Birbhum in MAC Case No. 68 of 2005.

2. The brief facts of the case is that the present respondents being the claimants have preferred an application before the learned tribunal under Section 163-A of M.V. Act for getting compensation on the ground that their predecessor was died in a road traffic accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle duly insured under the policy of the Insurance Company. The claim case was contested by the Insurance Company by filling written statement.

3. After hearing the parties and after receiving the evidences the learned tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,17,840/-towards compensation in favour of the claimants.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award, the Insurance Company has preferred the instant appeal.

4. The learned advocate for the Insurance Company submits that the award passed by the learned tribunal is not at all justified because of the fact that the deceased was a pillion rider of Mophed which suffered accident and was not covered under the policy of the Insurance Company. The learned tribunal has not considered the pleadings (WS) of the Insurance Company and passed that erroneous order. He argued that the Insurance Policy does not cover the gratuitous passenger or Pillion rider. So, at this stage, the Insurance Company may not be directed to pay the compensation, on the other hand the owner of the offending vehicle may be directed to pay the compensation.

5. He further argued that the income of the deceased was stated in the claim application to be more than Rs.40,000/-so the instant application under Section 163-A of M.V. Act is not maintainable.

6. The claimants/respondents submit that the Insurance Company has not pleaded the fact of pillion rider or the gratuitous passenger in his WS. The matter has just placed before the appellant Court for the first time. When the Insurance Company not raised the specific ground, they are debarred to take such ground at the stage of appeal. He further argued that the policy of the Insurance Company was exhibited and it is a package policy so the pillion rider is well covered under such policy.

7. In support of his contentions, learned advocate for the appellant submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni & Ors. V. United India Assurance Co. Ltd., Baroda reported in (2004) 54 SCC 385, has held that the proceeding under Section 163-A of M.V. Act being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those yearly income is upto Rs.40,000/-can take the benefit thereof whereas Sections 140 and 166 cater to all sections of society. He also submits that in Kanai manna V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2009 ACJ 544, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has held that:

“....it is now settled law that a claim application under Section 163-A of the Act can be maintained only at the instance of the victim whose yearly income did not exceed Rs.40,000/-therefore, in the present case, the tribunal ought to have dismissed the application as not maintainable on the basis of the averments made by the applicant in the claim application.”

8. Mr. Paul, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that the claim application of this case stated the income of the deceased to be more than Rs.40,000/-per year. Thus, the instant claim application is not maintainable and liable to be rejected; the award passed by the learned tribunal is bad in law.

9. Refuting the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant, learned advocate for the claimant submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Murti and Others V. Punjab State Electricity Board reported in 2022 (4) TAC 438 (SC) has held that:

“7. The provisions of Section 140 which formed a pa