( 1 ) HEARD learned advocate Mr. Hasmukh Thakkar appearing on behalf of appellant " New India Assurance Company Limited.

( 2 ) THE appellant has challenged the award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux. I), Fast Track Court No. 1, Kachchh at Bhuj in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 473 of 2004 dated 30th November 2007. The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,40,000/- in favour of claimants with 9% interest. The claimants have filed an application for compensation under the provisions of Section 163a of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 6,57,884/ -.

( 3 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. Thakkar raised contention before this Court that admittedly monthly salary of respondent No. 1 claimant was Rs. 6,314/-, therefore, it comes to more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum (Rs. 75,768/- ). Therefore, application made under Section 163a of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable and Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide it. He also submitted that injuries suffered by respondent No. 1 claimant was not on account of any vehicular accident, but, it was an intentional act of driver of the vehicle which is reflected in the FIR which was filed under Section 302, 307, 332, 333 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code before Bhachau Police Station and another FIR was filed under Section 307, 427 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code before Rahpar Police Station. Therefore, Claims before Tribunal is not maintainable. He further submitted that in complaint filed by Shri D. R. Agravat and his police party, name of claimant is not mentioned as to injuries received by him. Therefore, injuries received by respondent No. 1 claimant is not on account of accident but a result of intentional act of driver of the vehicle. He also submitted that there is no loss of income as service of the respondent claimant was remained continue and multiplier should not have to give beyond five and there is no medical certificate produced by the claimant for permanent partial disablement determining 50% disability. The Tribunal has committed an error in awarding medical expenses in favour of claimant. He further submitted that permission under Section 170 of the Act has been granted by the Tribunal. Except that, no other contention was raised by learned advocate Mr. Thakkar in the present appeal before this Court.

( 4 ) I have considered the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Thakkar. The claimant has filed an application under Section 163a of the M. V. Act to get the compensation of Rs. 6,57,884/- inter alia contending that on 15th December 2003, he, along with the deceased Jaydevan Sagardan Gadhvi and others were on their duty at Bhachau Police Station. At about 23-45 at night, ASI of Bhachau Polist Station viz. , Manjibhai Dhanjibhai Dabhi received message that Tata Sumo No. GJ-6-JJ-2189 and Mahindra Camper No. GJ-12-W-4963 and Mahindra Pick-up coming with loaded English wine having likely to be proceeded towards Rahpar as to unload the English wine. Therefore, police party left for necessary action in 'd' Mobile and necessary search was carried out in thick bushes near Piludi Project situated to the est of Village Kunjisar, but, no one was found. Therefore, police party had come on the main road and reached on the spot little away from the village Kunjisar. At that time, Mahindra Camper vehicle had proceeded towards Bhachau in excessive speed. Therefore, the striking force police who were ahead of the police party were informed and little later, the police party was informed. The striking force had chased the Mahindra Camper as said Mahindra Camper had returned back and proceeded towards police party side. At that time, the respondent claimant and another police were near village Kunjisar and they have stopped the police vehicle and got down from the vehicle and were standing near the road to stop Mahindra Camper and to catch hold of the stock of English wine. At about 00-45 hours on 16th December 2003, the Mahindra Camper No. GJ-12-W-4963

Click Here to Read the rest of this document