1. In connection with the vehicular accident that took place on 19.03.2004 in which Dipakbhai Pravinchandra Mervan expired, the legal heirs preferred claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.187/2004 u/s.163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Junagadh. The said claim petition was allowed in part by judgment and award dated 10.01.2006.
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/-. 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].
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.5,000/-. 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 case (supra), I am of the opinion that the Tribunal is required to consider the matter afresh.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award dated 10.01.2006 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for considering the same afresh. The Tribunal is directed to decide the claim petition, as if the same was filed u/s.166 of the M.V. Act, within a period of Two Years from the date of receipt of this order. However, to protect the interest of the original claimants, the Tribunal concerned shall 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 been already withdrawn, then necessary set-of shall be given at the time of passing the final award. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Records and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/* Top