Jatavath Komti @ Lakshmi and Others vs K. Jangaiah and Another

V. Eswaraiah, J.—The appellants are the claimants. They have filed a petition in O.P. No. 171 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Addl. District Judge) Nalgonda, u/s 163-A as well as Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act) seeking compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- During the pendency of the O.P., the appellants/claimants filed a memo dated 23.4.2009 restricting their claim u/s 163-A of the Act only. The claims made u/s 163-A of the Act requires to be disposed of in accordance with Schedule-II in respect of deceased having annual income in between Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 40,000/-. In the present case, since the annual income of the deceased exceeds Rs. 40,000/-, when the Tribunal below has given an opportunity, the claimants ought to have claimed compensation u/s 166 of the Act instead of claiming compensation u/s 163-A of the Act. The Tribunal on consideration of the matter, by order dated 4.5.2009 dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimants are not entitled to compensation u/s 163-A of the M.V. Act, as the annual income of the deceased exceeds Rs. 40,000/-. Hence, the present appeal.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner realizes the mistake committed before Tribunal below and seeks permission to permit the appellants-claimants to prosecute their claim u/s 166 of the M.V. Act.

Heard the learned counsel for appellants and the learned counsel for second respondent-insurance company. In the above circumstances, without going to the merits of the case, the order under appeal dated 4.5.2009 in O.P. No. 171 of 2006 is set aside and the appellants-claimants are permitted to claim the compensation u/s 166 of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal below for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Sequel to allowing the appeal, the miscellaneous petitions filed along with the appeal stand dosed. No costs.