A petition under S.163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation is not maintainable if the income exceeds Rs. 40,000 per annum as per Supreme Court precedent.

1. Claimant has come in appeal against award dated 14.3.2005, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur in M.A.C. Petition No. 80 of 2002, dismissing the claim petition of the appellant.

2. The facts in brief are that appellant had filed petition claiming Rs. 5,00,000 compensation on account of death of her son Uttam Chand alias Tinku on 3.9.2000, involving the tractor No. HP 22-9120. On 3.9.2000, the deceased was driving tractor No. HP 22-9120 with trolley. The tractor crossed the bus stop at village Sulghan, a truck came from opposite and wrong side which forced the deceased to take the tractor on extreme left and apply brakes with the result the tractor turned turtle and deceased came under the trolley and died on the spot. The deceased was earning Rs. 5,000 per month. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were the owners and respondent No. 3 insurer of the tractor at the relevant time. The deceased was aged 22 years at the time of accident and death. On those facts the appellant filed the claim petition.
The appellant filed an application under O.6, R.17 read with O.1, R.10, Civil Procedure Code for converting the petition under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') to petition under S.163 - A of the Act and deletion of respondent No. 3 as party to the petition. The Tribunal on 5.3.2004 allowed the amendment and permitted the petitioner to convert the petition under S.163 - A of the Act. The name of respondent No. 3 was not deleted rather a direction was given to file fresh memo of parties showing the name of respondent No. 3.

3. The petition was contested by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. They took the preliminary objections of maintainability, non - joinder of necessary party, namely, Jagdish Chand as tractor No. HP 22-9120 was allegedly given by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on lease to him. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 denied the claim of the appellant but pleaded that the tractor was insured with the respondent No. 3 at the relevant time.

4. The respondent No. 3 also contested the petition and took preliminary objections that the vehicle was being used in contravention to the insurance policy at the time of accident. In a petition arising out of the same accident, the Tribunal had fixed the liability on respondent Nos. 1 and 2. On merits, respondent No. 3 denied the claim of the appellant.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:
(1) Whether Uttam Chand had died on 3.9.2000, while driving tractor bearing No. HP 22-9120 which met with an accident and consequently was crushed under the tractor - trolley and succumbed to injuries he suffered? OPP
(2) Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
(3) Whether petition is not maintainable? OPR1 and 2
(4) Whether petition is bad for non joinder of Jagdish Chand, son of Dallu Ram who had taken the tractor on lease from respondent No. 1 as alleged, if so, to what effect? OPR1 and 2
(5) Whether the deceased Uttam Chand was not employee of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 at the time of accident as alleged? OPR1 and 2
(6) Whether the tractor at the time of accident was plied in contravention of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as alleged? OPR3
(7) Relief.

6. The Tribunal answered issue No. 1 in affirmative, the issue No. 2 was decided along with issue No. 3 by holding that the petition is not maintainable, issue Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were answered in negative and the petition was dismissed, hence appeal.

7. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Claims Tribunal has erred in returning t