ORDER :

HIRDESH, J.

This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company seeking setting aside of the impugned Award dated 12.12.2008 passed by the Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morena (hereinafter referred to as "Claim Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 117/2006, whereby the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 4,09,000/- to the respondent No.1/claimant.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 filed a claim application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 19,00,000/- for permanent disability sustained by him in a road traffic accident dated 31.12.2005 while driving Truck bearing registration No. MP07-G-4430. It was alleged that on the said day, while driving towards Indore, the truck met with an accident with another truck bearing No. UP78-AT-4105, as a result of which the claimant sustained grievous injuries resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 50%. The claimant alleged that at the time of accident he was aged 35 years and drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 4,000/- along with a daily allowance of Rs. 30/- per day. The claim application was opposed by the appellant/Insurance Company on the grounds that the driver, owner, and insurer of the other vehicle involved in the accident (Truck No. UP78-AT-4105) were necessary parties, and in their absence, the claim was not maintainable. It was also contended that the insured vehicle was plying in violation of policy conditions, and therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation. The Claim Tribunal, however, allowed the claim application and directed the appellant/Insurance Company along with respondent No.2 to pay Rs. 4,09,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum to the claimant.

3. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company by placing reliance on the decision of coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vikram Singh vs. Vijaypal Sharma and Others, decided on 15th of July, 2025 in Misc. Appeal No.1255 of 2009, submitted that the award is contrary to the facts and material on record as well as settled principles of law, and is therefore liable to be set aside. It was contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the claimant’s income fell within the threshold for claim under Section 163-A, whereas, as per the claim petition, the claimant was earning a monthly salary of Rs. 4,000/- plus daily allowance of Rs.30/-, which works out to an annual income exceeding Rs. 40,000/-. It was argued that Section 163-A provides a distinct scheme under the Act for persons whose annual income does not exceed Rs. 40,000/-, and claims of those earning above this limit are required to be determined under Chapter XII of the Act. It was further contended that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in assessing permanent disability at 50% without any basis. The treating doctor did not specify the part of the body affected nor the overall impact on the whole body. No deduction was made towards personal expenses of the claimant, and the Tribunal failed to consider contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. Therefore, it was argued that the claim under Section 163-A was not maintainable, and the compensation awarded was excessive and without justification.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposed the appeal, submitting that the claim was maintainable under Section 163-A, and the Claim Tribunal had correctly assessed the compensation. It was submitted that since the claimant pleaded his monthly income as Rs. 4,000/- with daily allowance of Rs. 30/-, his annual income falls within the limit for the purpose of Section 163-A, and the claim petition was rightly entertained.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. In case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others vs. United India Insurance Company Limited reported in 2004 ACJ 9