High CourtsSingle Bench

Chinta Rani Jamatia VsArup Debroy

Tripura High Court · Decided on 13 August 2014 · Citation: (2014) 08 TP CK 0003

HON’BLE JUDGES
Deepak Gupta, C.J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 163A, 166
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
MAC App No. 87 of 2008
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 376 words

Deepak Gupta, C.J.—The appellants had filed a petition u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act) claiming compensation on account of death of their brother Late Sri Brajabashi Jamatia.

2.

In the claim petition it is alleged that the deceased was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition by going into the question of negligence. In fact negligence is not an issue which is to be decided in a petition filed u/s 163A of the Act.

3.

Having said that in view of the fact that claimants claimed that the income of the deceased was Rs. 50,000/- per month i.e. much more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum, this petition u/s 163A of the Act itself is not maintainable in view of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Sukanya Kalai and others Vrs. Dilip Kr. Paul and another, MAC App. No. 39 of 2003 decided on 24th July, 2014 wherein following the judgments of the Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, and Puttamma and Others Vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and Another, this Court held as follows:

"[11] In our view, this Court is bound to follow the judgment of the Larger Bench delivered in the Deepal Girishbhai Soni''s case wherein it has been held in no uncertain terms that, the section of society whose annual income is more than Rs. 40,000/- is not entitled to file a petition u/s 163A of the Act. This view has also been approved in Puttamma''s case (supra).

[12] Therefore, the question which was placed for decision before us has to be answered by saying that a claim petition u/s 163A of the M.V. Act would not be maintainable where the income of the victim or the injured is more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum."

4.

In view of the above discussion, the appeal is rejected on the ground that petition u/s 163A of the Act was not maintainable. Liberty is reserved to the claimants to file a petition u/s 166 of the Act, if otherwise permissible under the law.

5.

Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

Send down the LCRs forthwith.