Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH

Judgment On Board

1. The appellant herein has preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) questioning the impugned award dated 13.04.2015 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pendra Raod, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No.28/2013 whereby the Claims Tribunal allowed the claimants’ application filed under Section 163(A) of the Act of 1988, and granted ₹ compensation to the tune or 4,35,000/- for the death of Harban Singh by fastening the liability upon the appellant herein.

2. Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the Claims Tribunal has committed grave error in holding that claim application under Section 163(A) of the Act 1988 was not maintainable as the claimants pleaded income of the deceased to ₹ 6,000/- per month meaning thereby ₹ 72,000/- per annum, which is more than 40,000/- as prescribed in Second Schedule enacted under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 and in light of decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, (2004) 5 SCC 385 the impugned award is liable to be quashed.

3. Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, would submit that the claim application had ₹ already been amended confining into 40,000/- per annum as income of the deceased before the Claims Tribunal, therefore, the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant as well as the present appeal deserves to be rejected.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records minutely.

5. In the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra) the Supreme Court has held that jurisdiction of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Section 163-A of the Act of 1988 can be invoked, if the annual income of a ₹ person is 40,000/- per annum and observed as under:-

“67. We, therefore, are of the opinion that Kodala 2001 ACJ 827 (SC), has correctly been decided. However, we do not agree with the findings in Kodala (supra) that if a person invokes provisions of Section 163-A, the annual income of Rs.40,000/- per annum shall be treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceeding under Section 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.”

6. A careful perusal of the claim application would show that though the earlier claimants had pleaded income of the deceased to the tune of ₹ 72,000/- per annum, but vide order dated 17.10.2014, the claimants have amended para 23 (e) of the claim application. In para 23 (e) of the claim application it has been pleaded by the claimants ₹ that yearly income of the deceased be taken as 40,000/-. That order dated 17.10.2014 permitting amendment in terms of para 23 (e) of the claim application has become final and it has not been questioned by the appellant herein and the claimants’ considering that application may not be maintainable proceeded to amend the claim application and the same is allowed that annual income of the ₹ deceased was 40,000/-. While passing the final order the Claim ₹ Tribunal has awarded only 36,000/- per annum and which is less ₹ than 40,000/- per annum, as such, though the annual income ₹ pleaded by the claimants was 40,000/- however, the annual ₹ income found by the Claims Tribunal is 36,000/- per annum.

7. In light of the aforesaid facts pleaded by the claimants that annual ₹ income of the deceased was 40,000/- and the annual income ₹ found by the Claims Tribunal is to the tune of 36,000/-, the Claims Tribunal has rightly granted the claim application filed under Section ₹ 163(A) of the Act