Basant, J. –

Is the benefit under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act unavailable to persons earning income exceeding Rs.40,000/- per annum?

This is the short question arising for consideration in this appeal.

2. Claimants are the dependents/legal heirs of a deceased person. They claimed compensation under Sections 166 and 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act without specifying the precise nature of the claim in the claim petition. The deceased was admittedly earning an income of Rs.6,200/- per mensem. When the matter reached the stage of trial, the claimants specified that they are staking the claim under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act and that they are limiting the claim to what would be payable if the deceased were a person getting an annual income of Rs.40,000/-. The Tribunal accepted the request and computed compensation payable under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act reckoning the deceased to be a person having an annual income of Rs.40,000/-.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that the court below could not have considered the claim under Section 163 A even assuming that the claimant had agreed to limit its claim to compensation that would be payable if the deceased were getting an annual income of Rs.40,000/- only.

4. The Tribunal obviously, it appears, felt that such permission could be given to limit the claim on the annual income of Rs.40,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the decision of the 3 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. [2004 (2) KLT 395 (SC)] . Reliance is particularly placed on the final conclusion of the Bench which appears in para.67, which we extract below:

"67: We, therefore, are of the opinion that Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Hansrajbhai Kodala & Ors [2001(2) KLT 235(SC)] has correctly been decided. However, we do not agree with the findings in Kodala (supra) that if a person invokes provisions of S.163-A, the annual income of Rs.40,000/- per annual shall be treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceedings under S.163-A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is upto Rs.40,000/- can take the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act."

5. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants Sri. R.T.Pradeep contends that nothing in Section 163 A prescribes that for persons whose annual income exceeds Rs.40,000/-, the benefit of Section 163 A is not available. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants relies on the language of Section 163 A to contend that such a limitation is not decipherable from the statutory provision. The learned counsel further submits that it is easily possible to ascertain the rationale underlying the specification of the amounts in different columns of the table/chart in the Second Schedule as explained by this Court in National Insurance Company v. Muneer [2003(1) KLT 137]. Adopting the same rationale, compensation payable for persons having annual income exceeding Rs.40,000/- can be easily ascertained. In these circumstances, there is no reason to limit the benefit of Section 163 A to persons having annual income of Rs.40,000/- and less, contends the learned counsel.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants in this context further relies on the following paragraph in the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [(2009) 6 SCC 121], which reads as follows:

"The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was amended by Act 54 of 1994, inter alia, inserting Section 163-A and the Second Schedule with effect from 14.11.1994. Section 163-A of the MV Act contains a special provision as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis, as indicated in the Second Schedule to the Act. The Second Schedule contains a table prescribing the compensation to be awarded with reference to the age and income of the de