The main legal point established in the judgment is that sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is intended for a specified class of citizens with an annual income of Rs.40,000 or less, and notional scaling down of income to invoke this provision is not permissible.

Vinod Kumar Sharma, J.

1. By way of present revision petition the petitioner has impugned order dated 26.7.2006 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, chandigarh (for short the Tribunal ).

2. The petitioner herein had filed a claim petition under sec. 163-A of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act)seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident. In the claim petition the claimant had claimed that his monthly income was rs.9,600 and in addition thereto he had also been earning Rs.1,500 per month as overtime income.

3. During the pendency of the claim petition an application was moved under order 6, rule 17 of the Code of Civil procedure in order to reduce his pleaded income, i. e. , Rs.9,600 + Rs.1,500 to rs.3,200 per month notionally and also to reduce his original claim of compensation from Rs.10,00,000 to Rs.8,00,000. In support of his submissions, the petitioner had also relied upon the judgment of karnataka High Court in the case of Guruanna vadi V/s. General Manager, Karnataka State road Trans. Corpn. , 2001 ACJ 1528 (Karnataka) and also the judgment of this court in Gurmeet Kaur V/s. Hardeep Singh, 2006 acj 218 (Pandh) and claimed that the petitioner be allowed to scale down his claim in a petition filed under sec. 163-A of the Act.

4. The petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Sulochana V/s. Karnataka state Road Trans. Corpn. , 2005 ACJ 849 (Karnataka), which laid down that a person whose annual income is beyond the maximum provided under the Second Schedule to the Act can maintain a claim petition under sec. 163-A of the Act. Petitioner claim that in view of the said judgment it was open to the petitioner to notionally bring down his income to Rs.40,000 per annum.

5. The application was opposed by respondent no.3, i. e. , National Insurance Co. Ltd. as well as respondent Nos.1 and 2 by relying upon the judgment of this court in new India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Amit mittal, F. A. O. No.1115 of 2005; decided on 20.9.2005, in which reliance was made on Deepal Girishbhai Soni V/s. United India insurance Co. Ltd. , 2004 ACJ 934 (SC), wherein it was held that a claim petition by a person whose net salary was Rs.9,617 was not maintainable under sec. 163-A of the Act.

6. Learned Tribunal noticed the observation of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni, 2004 ACJ 934 (SC), wherein it was held as under:

" (51) The scheme as envisaged under sec. 163-A, in our opinion, leaves no manner of doubt that by reason thereof the rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined finally. Amount of compensation payable under the aforementioned provisions is not to be altered or varied in any other proceedings. It does not contain any provision providing for set off against a higher compensation unlike sec. 140. In terms of the said provision, a distinct and specified class of citizens, namely, persons whose income per annum is Rs.40,000 or less is covered thereunder whereas sections 140 and 166 cater to all sections of the society. "

Learned Tribunal, therefore, on consideration of material placed on record came to the conclusion that as the annual income of the petitioner exceeded the limit of rs.40,000, therefore, he could not be held to be covered under the provisions of section 163-A of the Act and, therefore, it was not open to him to scale down the income and accordingly, dismissed the application for amendment.

7. Ms. Ekta Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a Division bench judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Sulochana V/s. Karnataka state Road Trans. Corpn. , 2005 ACJ 849 (Karnataka), to contend that order passed by learned Tribunal cannot be sustained as it was open to the petitioner to notionally bring down his income to Rs.40,000 per annum.

8. Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 supported the order passed by th