SADHNA Vs. KULDEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant has filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 7.1.2008 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon, whereby his application for amendment in the claim petition, to convert his application filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to a petition under section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act by restricting the income of the deceased to less than Rs. 40,000 per annum has been rejected by relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Himachal Road Trans. Corpn. v. Baldev Kumar Nayyer, 2007 ACJ 678 (P&H).

(2.) As per the averments made in the petition, husband of the petitioner met with an accident and died. Petitioner filed a claim petition mentioning the income of her husband as Rs. 24,000 per month. Thereafter, she moved an application for amendment in her claim. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon vide its order dated 13.8.2007 allowed the proposed amendment and income of her husband was reduced from Rs. 24,000 to Rs. 3,200 per month. Petitioner moved another application for converting her claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act into under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) The aforesaid application was contested by the respondents stating therein that the application was an abuse of process of law as the petitioner had earlier sought amendment with regard to the income of the deceased which was not opposed by the respondents in good faith as there was no income bar for filing a petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, whereas, if the petition is filed under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act annual income of the deceased could not be exceeding Rs. 40,000 per annum. The petitioner did not disclose his intention of getting the claim petition converted into one under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. At the time of seeking amendment with regard to income of the deceased by concealing his true intention, it was mentioned in the earlier application for amendment that by inadvertence and typing mistake Rs. 24,000 per month was written instead of Rs. 3,200 per month and thus, by this amendment, petitioner is seeking to scale down the income to bring it under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act which is not permissible in law. The Tribunal, vide the impugned order rejected the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner.