RANI DEVI Vs. RAI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are claimants before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short 'the Tribunal'). Their application under Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C. for permitting them to relinquish part of their claim by bringing down the income of the deceased from Rs. 3500/- per month to Rs. 3300/- per month and to proceed with the petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short 'the Act') stands dismissed vide the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the sole bread earner of the family of the claimants has expired in a motor vehicle accident and it had been pleaded in para 24 of the claim petition that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, driver of the offending tractor. The accident has already been denied by respondents 1 and 2 in their written statement. Even the Insurance Company has also denied the accident. Relying upon Gurmeet Kaur and Ors. v. Hardeep Singh and Anr. Vol. CXL (2005-2) The Punjab Law Report 503, it was argued that Section 163-A is a social security provision, which gives a right to the claimants to claim income of the deceased upto Rs. 40,000/- per annum and for this purpose the claimants need not to prove the negligence on part of the offending vehicle, as such the said provision has be interpreted in a liberal manner. In the said case the abandonment of part of the claim under Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C. was held permissible to take the protection of Section 163-A of the Act. It was observed in the said judgment that the application for restricting the claim to Rs. 7 lacs instead of Rs. 10 lacs cannot be said to be an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C.

(2.) ON the other hand learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd Baroda Vol. CXXXVII- (2004-2) The Punjab Law Report 217, to contend that a claimant cannot pursue his remedies under Sections 163-A and 166 of the Act simultaneously.

(3.) IN Deepal Girishbhai Soni's case (supra) considering the scope of Section 140 and Section 163-A of the Act it was held that Section 140 of the Act dealt with interim compensation whereas by inserting Section 163-A, the Parliament intended to provide for making of an award consisting of a predetermined sum without insisting on a long drawn trial or without proof of negligence in causing the accident.