1. In connection with the vehicular accident that took place on 06.04.1999 in which Baxibhai Budhabhai Vasava,expired, the legal heirs preferred claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.485/2000 u/s.163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Bharuch. The said claim petition was allowed in part by judgment and award dated 11.11.2004.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though it was specifically averred in the claim petition that the annual income of the deceased exceeded the statutory limit of Rs.40,000/-, the Tribunal ignored the same and proceeded with the hearing of the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act despite the fact that the Act prohibits entertainment of a claim petition filed under Section 163-A if in a given case the annual income exceeds Rs.40,000/-. He further submitted that the Tribunal has also not considered the other defence of the Insurance Company. In support of the submission, he has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2004(2) GLH 180 [AIR 2004 SC 2107 = 2004(5) SCC 385] and National Insurance Co. v. Sinitha and others, (2012) 2 SCC 356 [2011 (13) SCALE 84], and it has been prayed that the matter be remanded to the Tribunal concerned.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent was not in a position to controvert the above position of law.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It is not in dispute that the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act. In the claim petition preferred before the Tribunal, a specific averment was made by the claimant that the monthly income of deceased was Rs.46000/-. Therefore, the annual income would exceed the statutory limit of Rs.40,000/-. In this context, it would be pertinent to note that Second Schedule appended to Section 163-A specifically deals with claim petitions arising out of cases wherein the annual income does not exceed Rs.40,000/-. In other words, a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act could be entertained only if the annual income does not exceed Rs.40,000/-. The intention of the legislature is very clear since it specifically bars the entertainment of a claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act if the annual income exceeds Rs.40,000/-.
5. In the instant case, as discussed herein above, the annual income of the deceased exceeds the statutory limit of Rs.40,000/-, which is clear from the claim petition itself. It is required to be noted that the Tribunal has also recorded the said fact in the impugned award. Thus, considering the facts of the case and the principle laid down in Deepal Girishbhai Soni's and Sinitha's case (supra), I am of the opinion that the Tribunal is required to consider the matter afresh.
6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the following order is passed:
(i) The impugned judgment and award is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The matter is remanded to the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for adjudication afresh under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.
(iii) This Court has passed the aforesaid order in view of the fact that the Tribunal has not followed the procedure established by law and therefore the Tribunal may not be influenced by the order of this Court.
(iv) The amount invested in Fixed Deposit, as directed by this Court, shall be continued in Fixed Deposit and the claimants shall be entitled for the periodical interest on the said Deposit only up to the date of this judgment and order.
(v) It is, however, made clear that interest accruing on the said Fixed Deposit shall be accumulated and will be adjusted at the time of the final award.
(vi) The amount awarded & already withdrawn by the claimant, pursuant to the impugned award, will be adjusted at the time of the final award.
(vii) Since the matter is pending since long, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than two years from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court.
(viii) It is observed that this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter and the Tribunal shall consider the same afresh, without being influenced by the fact that this Court has quashed its earlier judgment and award.
(ix) R & P, if lying with this court, to be sent to the Tribunal forthwith.
[K.S. JHAVERI,J.] pawan