1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 07.08.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.63 of 2001 filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act whereby, the claim petition was allowed in part.
2. The aforesaid claim petition was preferred in connection with the vehicular accident that took place on 24.02.2001 in which Ranjitsinh Himmatsinh Chauhan had expired.
3. It has been mainly contended on behalf of the appellant that though it was specifically averred in the claim petition that the deceased was earning Rs.4,683/- per month, which would exceed the statutory limit of annual income of Rs.40,000/- for consideration of a claim petition u/s.163-A of the said Act, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the same and proceeded with the hearing of the said application. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Apex Court in case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 2107.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the claim petition has been filed under Section 163-A of the Act. A specific averment was made by the claimant in the claim petition that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.4,683/- at the time of his death. Therefore, admittedly, his annual income would exceed the statutory limit of Rs.40,000/-. It would be pertinent to note that Schedule-II appended to Section 163-A, specifically deals with claim petitions arising out of cases where in annual income does not exceed Rs.40,000/-. In other words, a claim petition filed 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 was approximately Rs.56,000/-, which is evident from the claim petition itself. It is required to be noted that the Tribunal has also recorded the said fact in its award. Considering the principle, laid down in Deepal Soni's case (supra), the impugned award deserves to be quashed and set aside.
6. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for considering the same afresh u/s.166 of the M.V. Act. The Tribunal is directed to decide the claim petition afresh within a period of Two Years from the date of receipt of this order. However, to protect the interest of the original applicant, the Tribunal is directed to invest the entire amount lying with it in FDR on long terms basis and the interest accrued thereon shall be accumulated but if any amount has already been withdrawn, then necessary set-of will be given at the time of passing the final award. Orders regarding disbursement of the amount of deposit shall be passed at the time of final disposal of the claim petition. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. R & P to be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
[K.S.JHAVERI, J.] pravin/* Top