ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. BIMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -ON this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the insurer of motor vehicle allegedly involved in the accident coming up for consideration today, Mr. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits and states before me that he is not in a position to defend the legality and correctness of the impugned award inasmuch as the learned tribunal has exceeded the jurisdiction vesting in him under section 163-A of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and on that ground alone, the award deserves to be set aside. Mr. Thakur, however, also submitted that because of the aforesaid patently technical defect in the award, suffering as it does from the error of jurisdiction relating to section 163-A of the Act, claimants-respondent nos. 1 to 4 be permitted to approach the Tribunal with a prayer for amendment of M. A. C. Petition No. 95 of 2001 (having been originally filed under section 163-A of the Act) to convert it into a regular claim petition under section 166 of the Act, of course after reviving M. A. C. Petition No. 95 of 2001.

(2.) A bare look at the impugned award dated 31. 8. 2004 clearly suggests that the learned Tribunal indeed exceeded the jurisdiction, actually improperly exercised the jurisdiction under section 163-A of the Act because on the own showing of the claimants the annual income of the deceased was more than Rs. 40,000 and, therefore, a petition under section 163-A of the Act was not at all maintainable. The ratio in the judgment of Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2004 acj 934 (SC), is a clear pointer to the non-maintainability of a petition under section 163-A of the Act where the annual income of the deceased is more than Rs. 40,000. The following observations in the said judgment are apposite and I quote:

(3.) SINCE the Tribunal has improperly exercised the jurisdiction rendering the award invalid on that ground alone, perhaps the claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 should not be punished for this error on the part of the Tribunal and in that light I find that the prayer of Mr. Thakur deserves to be considered objectively and granted in favour of the claimants.