1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MAC No. 1454 of 2017
1. Maksud Alam S/o Sheikh Abdul Razzak, Aged About 47 Years
R/o Ashadin Dafai, Ward No. 20, North Jhagrakhand, Police
Station Jhagrakhand, Tehil Manendragarh, District Koriya,
Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
2. Anwari Begum, W/o Maksud Alam Aged About 40 Years R/o
Ashadin Dafai, Ward No. 20, North Jhagrakhand, Police Station
Jhagrakhand, Tehsil Manendragarh, District Koriya,
Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
---- Appellants
Versus
1. Mohd. Javed Khan S/o Mohd. Saeed Khan, Aged About 42
Years R/o Village Tarabahra, Police Station Kolhari, Tehsil
Manendragarh, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
2. Anil Duggal, S/o Vedprakash Duggal, Aged About 60 Years R/o
Duggal Hill View Kharsiya Road, Police Station And Tehsil
Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja
(Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
3. United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch
Manager, Office Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.,
District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Appellants : Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Shri Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
Order On Board
31/01/2024
The present appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, (for short “MV Act”) 1988 against the impugned
award dated 19.09.2017 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.
25/2016 by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
2
Manendragarh, District Koriya.
2. The claim petition preferred by the claimants under Section 163-
A of the MV Act alleging inter alia that on the date of accident i.e.
19.01.2015, the deceased was sitting besides the respondent
No.1/driver of the offending vehicle truck bearing registration No. CG
15 AC 5300 and the respondent No.1 by rash and negligent driving
caused the accident as a result of which he sustained injury on the
head and subsequently died during treatment.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that
deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and upon calculating
the yearly income, taking the above mentioned amount, it would come
to more than Rs. 40,000/- (ie. Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum). The Tribunal
on the basis of the provisions under Section 163-A of the MV Act has
erred in dismissing the claim petition. He further submits that the
learned Tribunal ought to have decided the claim petition under Section
166 of the MV Act.
4. To this, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance company
submits that the claimants had pleaded the income of the deceased as
Rs. 10,000/- per month (Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum) which is more than
the upper cap of Rs. 40,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule under
Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant’s claim petition
filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, itself was not
maintainable. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni Vs.
United Insurance Company Ltd. Baroda (2004) 5 SCC 385 which
has also been relied upon by the Division Bench of this Court in Misc.
3
Appeal No. 216 of 2006 (Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Swatantra Kumar Verma and Others), in Misc. Appeal No. 706 of
2014 (Smt. Sunita Gupta Vs. Gurusharan and Others) and
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1122 of 2005 (Smt. Kala Bai Vs.
Rajendra Jain).
5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available
on record.
6. The question before this Court is as to whether annual
income of the deceased is more than Rs. 40,000/- and the same is
maintainable under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act in the present
form?
7. From perusal of the pleadings, it appears that the deceased was
working as a driver and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month which
clearly shows that he was earning Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum. Therefore
as per the assessment of the Tribunal, deceased was earning more
than Rs. 40,000/- yearly. In the case of Deepal Gishihbhai Soni
(supra) the Supreme Court has held that the provision for getting
compensation under Section 163-A of the Act is totally different from
Section 166 of the Act. When a petitioner files a claim petition under
Section 166 of the Act, he is required to prove negligence, but under
Section 163-A of the Act, no negligence is required to be proved and it
amounts to no fault liability. It has been held by the Supreme Court as
follows:
“67. We therefore, are of the opinion that Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hansrajbhai Vs. Kodala (2001) 5
SCC 175 has correctly been decided. However, we do
not agree with the findings in Kodala that if a person
4
invokes provisions of Section 163-A, the annual income
of Rs. 40,000/- per annum shall be treated as a cap. In
our opinion, the proceeding under Section 163-A being
a social security provision, providing for a distinct
scheme only those whose annual income is upto Rs.
40,000/- can take benefit thereof. All other claims are
required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the
Act.”
8. It was further observed that where such beneficial legislation has
a scheme of its own and there is no vagueness or doubt therein, the
Court should not expand the scope of the Statute on the pretext of
extending the statutory benefit to those who are not covered thereby.
That, the object underlying the statute is required to be given effect by
applying the principles of purposeful construction.
9. Thus, after considering the submissions advanced by the
counsel for the parties and after perusing the impugned award and the
findings recorded by the learned Tribunal while dismissing the claim
case as also in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra), which is also followed by the
Division Bench of this Court, it appears that the claimants had pleaded
that the yearly income of the deceased is more than Rs. 40,000/- (ie.
Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum) and as such the claim petition filed by the
claimants under Section 163-A of the Act is not maintainable. The
compensation in a Claim Petition under Section 163-A cannot be
awarded over and above the Schedule provided in the Act.
10. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or error
warranting interference by this Court. Hence, this Court upheld the
findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. The present appeal filed
under Section 163-A of the MV Act is accordingly dismissed as not
5
maintainable.
11. However, the appellant would be at liberty to file application
afresh under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned
Tribunal, if law permits.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
suguna