NARESH KUMAR Vs. VIKAS RATHI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned court below in an application filed by the petitioner for restricting his claim to an annual income of Rs. 36,000/- in a claim petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') for grant of compensation.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner had filed a petition for claiming compensation on account of injuries and permanent disability suffered by him in a road accident. It was mentioned therein that he was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. The petition was initially filed under Section 166 of the Act. During the pendency thereof, with the permission of the Court, the same was converted into a petition under Section 163-A of the Act. However, inadvertently, the amount of income, as was shown in the petition, was not amended. Prayer in the application was made to restrict the claim while treating the income of the petitioner at Rs. 36,000/- per annum as against Rs. 4,000/- per month, already mentioned. The application having been rejected, the order has been impugned in the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation and has to be interpreted liberally. Once the petitioner was seeking to abandon part of his claim, no objection to that should have been taken. Reliance was placed upon Gurmeet Kaur and others v. Hardeep Singh and others,2005 2 RCR 149 and Ravinder and another v. Subhash Chand and others,2006 2 RCR 525. He further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Saroj and others,2007 1 RCR 152 opined that even if a claim had been made at a higher income, the claimant cannot be disqualified to lay claim under Section 163-A of the Act, if the Tribunal comes to a finding that the income of the claimant was below Rs. 40,000/- per annum.