BANGLORE METRO TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. LAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BMTC has filed this appeal challenging the Judgment and award passed by the MACT, Bangalore dated: 10-6-2002 in MVC 2110/1999. Respondents were the claimants before the tribunal. Originally claim petition was lodged by them under Sec. 166 of MV act claiming compensation on account of the death of Hanumanna alias Ramanna who died in road traffic accident on 28-10-1998 at about 7-30 a. m. near Corporation Bus-stand, deceased was 51 years and drawing salary of Rs. 4090/ -. Appellant-BMTC contested the case denying the accident. Later on amendment was sought by the claimants seeking permission of the court to convert claim petition from provisions of Sec. 166 of MV Act to Sec. 163-A of the MV Act restricting the income at Rs. 40,000/- per annum. The tribunal though held that deceased was annually getting Rs. 51,804/- restricting the income to Rs. 40,000/- awarded compensation of Rs. 3,02,833/ -. This judgment and award is called in question in this appeal.

(2.) WE have heard the counsel for both the parties.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that deceased was a sweeper by profession and was an employee of the corporation of City of Bangalore and his gross salary was Rs. 4342/- and not salary was Rs. 4179/ -. Ex. P-6 is the salary certificate. By looking into Ex. P-6, considering the pleadings of the claimants, we are of the opinion that claim petition under Sec. 163-A of the MV Act was not maintainable. Claimpetition under Sec. 163-A is applicable to the person whose income is less than Rs. 40,000/- per annum. Tribunal has no power to restrict the income of the claimant or deceased as the case may be to Rs. 40,000/- to bring the petition within the purview of Sec. 163-A of the MV Act. Sec. 163-A of the MV Act is enacted to give benefit to particular class of people whose income is less than Rs. 40,000/- per annum. Therefore, when a person is having income of more than Rs. 40,000/-in order to get benefit under Sec. 163-Aof the MV Act, cannot maintain a petition by restricting his income to Rs. 40,000/- per annum. Therefore, we are of the opinion that judgment and award of the tribunal has to be set aside and we have to direct the tribunal to consider the case of the claimants under Sec. 166 of the MV Act.