The central legal point established in the judgment is the permissibility of abandoning a claim under Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C. and the liberal interpretation of Section 163-A as a social security provision.

M.M.S.Bedi, J.

1. The petitioners are claimants before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short the Tribunal). Their application under Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C. for permitting them to relinquish part of their claim by bringing down the income of the deceased from Rs. 3500/- per month to Rs. 3300/- per month and to proceed with the petition under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short the Act) stands dismissed vide the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the sole bread earner of the family of the claimants has expired in a motor vehicle accident and it had been pleaded in para 24 of the claim petition that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, driver of the offending tractor. The accident has already been denied by respondents 1 and 2 in their written statement. Even the Insurance Company has also denied the accident. Relying upon Gurmeet Kaur and Ors. v. Hardeep Singh and Anr. Vol. CXL (2005-2) The Punjab Law Report 503, it was argued that Section 163-A is a social security provision, which gives a right to the claimants to claim income of the deceased upto Rs. 40,000/- per annum and for this purpose the claimants need not to prove the negligence on part of the offending vehicle, as such the said provision has be interpreted in a liberal manner. In the said case the abandonment of part of the claim under Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C. was held permissible to take the protection of Section 163-A of the Act. It was observed in the said judgment that the application for restricting the claim to Rs. 7 lacs instead of Rs. 10 lacs cannot be said to be an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C.

2. On the other hand learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd Baroda Vol. CXXXVII-(2004-2) The Punjab Law Report 217, to contend that a claimant cannot pursue his remedies under Sections 163-A and 166 of the Act simultaneously.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the facts and circumstances of the present case. The claimants seek to amend their claim petition filed under Section 166 to a petition under Section 163-A of the Act by relinquishing part of their claim by pleading that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month whereas in the original petition it was pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs. 3500/- per month.

4. In Deepal Girishbhai Sonis case (supra) considering the scope of Section 140 and Section 163-A of the Act it was held that Section 140 of the Act dealt with interim compensation whereas by inserting Section 163-A, the Parliament intended to provide for making of an award consisting of a predetermined sum without insisting on a long drawn trial or without proof of negligence in causing the accident.

5. In the said case two applications had been filed by the claimants. One under Section 163-A and another under Section 166 of the Act. Both the applications had been entertained by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court and on the basis that the amount of compensation under Section 163-A is by way of an interim award and the same would not preclude the claimants to proceed with made in terms of Section 166 of the Act. The Hon ble Supreme court had directed that the application under Section 163-A be treated under Section 140 of the Act. It was specifically clarified in the said judgment that a claimant cannot pursue his remedies under Section 163-A and 166 of the Act simultaneously and thus one must opt/elect to go either for a proceedings under Section 163-A or under Section 166 of the Act but not under both.

6. The question of abandonment of claim came up for consideration before this Court in Gurmeet Kaurs case (supra), wherein it was observed as follows:

I have considered the contentions of both the sides and I am of the considered view that the petit