AVTAR KAUR Vs. PREM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is filed against the award dated 23.12.2006, whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (Tribunal for short) rejected the claim of the appellants made under Section 163 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act for short) on the ground that the petition was not maintainable because the income of the deceased was more than Rs.40,000/ - per annum.

(2.) COUNSEL for the appellants submitted that it was true that in the petition the claimants had alleged that the income of deceased Amarjit Singh was Rs.25,000/ - per month but in view of the compulsion under Section 163 -A of the Act, they restricted the income to Rs.40,000/ - per annum. He contended that once the appellants scored down the income to Rs.40,000/ - per annum, the respondents were not prejudiced in any way and, therefore, adjustment of rest of the claim on the part of the claimants should have been considered in the positive direction by the Tribunal and award should have been passed accordingly. Reliance was placed on Rani Devi and others Vs. Rai Singh and others, 2007 1 TAC 673. The view taken in the reported case by a Coordinate Bench of this Court is not binding. Even otherwise, another Single Bench of this Court took a different view in a case reported as New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Rupinder Kaur and others, 2014 176 PunLR 623 in which the judgment was passed later in point of time.

(3.) IF the appellants had moved for compensation under Section 163 -A of the Act, they should have adhered to the mandatory provisions of law and should not have pleaded the income of the deceased to be Rs.25,000/ - per month. It was held by the Supreme Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004 3 AllMR 674 that remedies under Sections 163 -A and 166 of the Act were independent of each other and if the claimant elects to make a claim under Section 163 -A of the Act, it should remain restricted to that. This would mean that the pre -requisite for filing a claim under Section 163 -A of the Act regarding income of the deceased must prevail and the claimant/s has/have to be sure about the pleadings. It was also held by the Supreme Court that only those, whose annual income was upto Rs.40,000/ -, could take the benefit of Section 163 -A of the Act.