( 1 ) THIS group of petitions is filed by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , essentially under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar, dated 24/8/2006, whereby the Tribunal has granted applications of the claimants seeking amendment in the claim petitions. The claimants have filed M. A. C. petitions under the provisions of section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as the Act ] before the M. A. C. Tribunal [main], Bhavnagar for obtaining compensation for the death and/or injuries suffered by the victims of a vehicular accident. These applications have been given in different proceedings, but since the issue involved is common, the Tribunal decided them by passing common order, which is under challenge. Hence the petitions are heard together and now they are disposed of by this common judgment.

1. 1. The claimants have filed petitions wherein initially they averred that the income of the victims was Rs. 4,500/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month. However, by filing the amendment applications, the claimants said that through inadvertence the income of the victims was shown as Rs. 4,500/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month and the real income was Rs. 3,200/- to Rs. 3,300/- per month, which would be Rs. 40,000/-per annum. The Insurance company opposed these applications on the ground that such amendment was not permissible and when the income pleaded by the claimants exceeded Rs. 40,000/- p. a. , claim petition under section 163-A of the Act was not maintainable. The Tribunal, however, held that the petitioner s objection was not sustainable and the amendment was required to be granted.

1. 2. The petitioner has objected the amendment on the ground that when admittedly the income exceeded Rs. 40,000/- per annum, the claimants cannot be allowed to restrict the claim to Rs. 40,000/- and avail the remedy under section 163-A of the Act. According to the petitioner, claim petitions under section 163-A of the Act are not maintainable.

( 2 ) I have heard Mr. VP Nanavati, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. DC Sejpal, learned advocate for respondents. Mr. Nanavati has submitted that the impugned order is against the settled proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court as well as different High Courts including this Court and, therefore, it is required to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that when the claim is filed on the basis of income exceeding Rs. 40,000/- p. a. , the claimant cannot be permitted to reduce the income so as to avail the benefit of section 163-A of the Act. It is his submission that provisions of section 163-A of the Act are meant for expeditious remedy for a particular class of persons whose annual income does not exceed Rs. 40,000/ -. He has submitted that the claimants who have filed the claim petitions on the basis of the income of the victims above Rs. 40,000/- p. a. , their petitions under section 163-A were not maintainable and only course open for them was to have inquiry or trial under section 166 of the Act. He has placed reliance on several judicial pronouncements to support his submissions.

2. 1. As against that, Mr. DC Sejpal, learned advocate for the respondents " claimants has submitted that even when the claimants initially stated the income exceeding Rs. 40,000/- p. a. , in claim petitions, they were legally entitled to amend the petitions and reduce the income. He has cited certain decisions to support his submission.

( 3 ) I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned advocates. I have also carefully perused the record of the petitions. There is no dispute that when the claimants filed the claim petitions under section 163-A of the Act, they have stated that the victims were earning Rs. 4,500/- to Rs. 5,000/- per month. However, subsequently, applications for amendment to the claim petitions have been submitted wherein the averment with regard to the income is sought to be amended.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document