Advocates:
['P F PATNI', 'S V KULKARNI', '', 'R/ SERVED', 'C E GAIKWAD', 'R/ SERVED THROUGH PAPER PUBLICATION']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

First Appeal No. 2041 of 2008

Dinesh Bagul and others

Appellants

V E R S U S

Division Manager and ors

Respondent

Mr. P.F. Patni, Advocate for the appellants

Mr. S.V. Kulkarni, Advocate for the respondent No.1

CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J.

DATED : 15th June, 2010

PER COURT :

1.

As indicated earlier on 9^th June, 2008, the appeal is taken up for

disposal at the stage of admission.

2.

The appeal is filed against the Judgment and Award passed by

the learned Member, MACT, Aurangabad dismissing the appellants’

claim petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act

solely on the ground that the appellants were not entitled to file

petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act because the

victim of the accident had income of Rs.48,000/- which was beyond

the limit imposed by Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and

schedule appended thereto. All that the appellants’ now say is that

they should be allowed to convert their petition into the petition under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3.

The question as to whether in such situation the appellants /

claimants could be permitted to convert their application under

Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act into an application under

Section 166 of the Act was considered by the learned Judge of this

Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Ashabai &

others (2009 ACJ 163). The learned Judge held that since the

2

claimants were debarred from taking advantage of Section 163A of

the Act which was a social security provision available to the persons

whose annual income is restricted, they could be permitted to convert

such application into an application under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act mainly because there is no limitation provided for making

an application under Section 166 of the Act. I think, the appellants

here are entitled to similar relief. So, instead of dismissing their

appeal, following order would suffice the ends of justice.

a.

The appeal is allowed.

b.

Impugned Judgment and Award are set

aside.

c.

The M.A.C. petition No. 449 of 2004 is

remanded back to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

Aurangabad where the Tribunal shall allow the appellants

to convert the petition as filed under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act.

d.

Appeal stands disposed of.

(A.V. NIRGUDE, J.)

srm/fa/12941/08