Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

This reference has been made by a learned Single Judge of this Court on noticing the conflicting judgments made by this Court. The matter was put up on administrative side before the Chief Justice and was ordered to be listed before the Division Bench. This is how the instant reference came up for consideration before this Court.

2. The learned Single Judge, vide order, dated 21st July, 2016, while recording the reasons as to why reference was required, has referred the following questions for adjudication by the larger Bench:

“(i) Whether the claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the 'Act') was maintainable since according to the claimants themselves, income of the deceased was Rs. 6,000/- per month, i.e. Rs. 72,000/- per annum which is in excess of the upper limit of income i.e. Rs. 40,000/- provided under second schedule of the Act? and

(ii) Whether the claimants, after pleading an income more than what is prescribed in the second schedule, can abandon a part of their claim and restrict the same to Rs. 40,000/- per annum or less so as to bring inconformity with the schedule?”

3. Before we deal with the questions (supra) and determine the reference, it is profitable to give a brief history as to how compensation was granted to the persons, who sustained injuries in the vehicular accidents or to the legal representatives of the persons, who sustained injuries and succumbed to the said injuries, as per the mandate of Law of Torts.

4. In earlier days, a suit was to be filed by an aggrieved person for grant of compensation and with the development of law, different legislation was made in order to provide speedy and better remedies enabling the aggrieved person to have compensation as early as possible.

5. The Apex Court in the case titled as Syad Akbar versus State of Karnataka, reported in (1980) 1 SCC 30, has dealt with the issue.

6. The Motor Vehicles Act came into force in the year 1939. Section 110 of the said Act provided for grant of compensation. The claim petition was to be filed by the injured claimant or the legal representatives of the deceased, which was to be tried by the Tribunal headed by a District Judge. Thereafter, an amendment was made in the year 1982 and Section 92A was introduced in order to grant immediate relief by way of an interim award.

7. Thereafter, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act) came into force with effect from 1st July, 1989, replacing the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In the year 1994, the MV Act has gone through sea change with sole aim and object to provide speedy and effective relief to the victims, the details of which are given as under:

8. Chapter X of the MV Act, consisting of Sections 140 to 144, provides how to grant compensation 'On The Principle Of No Fault'.

9. Chapter XI of the MV Act mandates for insurance of the motor vehicles against third party risks. It contains Sections 145 to 164. Section 158 (6) provides that as soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or report under this section is completed by a police officer, it is the duty of the officer incharge of the police station to forward a copy of the same to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction. Chapter XI also contains Section 163A which provides for compensation 'On Structured Formula Basis'.

10. Chapter XII of the MV Act contains Sections 165 to 176. Section 166 (4) mandates the Claims Tribunal to treat the police report relating to vehicular accidents forwarded to it under Section 158 (6) as an application for compensation under this Act. Section 167 provides an option to the claimants, who also have remedy available under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “WC Act”). They can claim compensation either under the MV Act or WC Act.

11. The Apex Court has discussed the said provisions of law in a judgment rendered in the case titled as Jai Prakash versus National Insurance Company