1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 29.1.2024 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Abu Road in Claim Petition No. 39/2014 (CIS No. 1000 / 2014) whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition as preferred by the claimant on the premise that the same was not maintainable in terms of S.163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as the claimant was having an annual income of more than Rs.40,000 per annum.

2. Learned Tribunal concluded the above fact on basis of the document Exh. 96 as placed on record by the claimant himself which reflected his salary for the month of October 2013 to be Rs.32,300 per month. The learned Tribunal further took into consideration the statement of AW 2 i.e., the claimant himself wherein he admitted his monthly salary to be above Rs.50,000 per month.

3. Counsel for the appellant while relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004 ACJ 934 (SC), submitted that the court therein, finding the claim to be not maintainable in terms of S.163A of the Act, proceeded on to treat the claim petition to be under S.140 of the Act. He submitted that the same approach ought to have been adopted by the learned Tribunal in the present matter.

4. Heard the counsel and perused the record.

5. So far as the ground raised by counsel for the appellant to the extent that learned Tribunal ought to have treated the claim petition of the claimant to be under S.140 of the Act is concerned, this court is of the clear view that the said mode was adopted by the Hon'ble Apex Court while exercising jurisdiction under Art.142 of the Constitution of India. Same cannot therefore be treated to be as a precedent, that too, when in the same judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court specifically held that the benefit of S.163A, which is a security provision, can be taken only by those whose annual income is up to Rs.40,000 per annum and all other claims are required to be determined under Chapter XII of the Act.

6. Further, a coordinate Bench of this court in Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Samta Devi, SB CMA No. 1038 of 2001; decided on 21.3.2018, after considering all the earlier judgments on the issue including that of Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra) specifically observed that a claim petition under S.163A of the Act is not tenable at behest of claimants wherein the income of the deceased / claimant was more than Rs.40,000 per annum.

7. In view of the above settled position of law, this court does not find any ground to interfere with the finding as recorded by the learned Tribunal on issue No. 2. The rejection of the claim petition by the learned Tribunal therefore, does not call for any interference and the appeal is hence, dismissed. The appellant is at liberty to avail any other remedy available to him under law.
Appeal dismissed.