Ram Sarup vs Lakhpat Singh and Others

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—Brief facts of the present revision petition are that the petitioner-claimant filed claim petition u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended upto date claiming a compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- against the respondents on account of his permanent disability suffered by him.

The claimant moved an application before the Tribunal for amendment in the claim application that his monthly income was wrongly stated as Rs. 15,000/- per month and in fact his monthly income is hardly Rs. 3,000/- per month and that his income has, thus, inadvertently been shown so, and the same requires to be rectified.

The said application was contested by the respondents.

The Tribunal vide its impugned order held that application for amendment was filed when the parties have already led their evidence and in these circumstances, the claimant cannot be permitted to change the pleadings and rejected the amendment application.

Challenging the impugned order, learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the amendment sought was for a correction of a typographical error and the same was liable to be corrected. In support of his case, learned Counsel relied upon a judgment of this Court reported as Jaibir v. Mahender Singh and Ors. 2007 (1) P L J 567.

6.I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, I find no merit in this petition.

The judgment cited by the learned Counsel is of no help to the petitioner as the same is distinguishable on facts. In Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Baldev Kumar Nayyer and Others, , a Division Bench of this Court has laid down as under:

Where during the course of proceedings before the Tribunal a prayer was made that the petitions be treated as petitions u/s 163A of the Act by restricting the inc6me of the deceased/injured to less than Rs. 40,000/- per annum. The Tribunal accepted this prayer and has allowed the petitions by treating the same as petitions u/s 163-A of the Act. It was contended that in view of the claim of the claimants themselves that the income of the deceased/injured was more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum, the Tribunal was not justified in treating the petitions to be petitions u/s 163A of the Act and awarding compensation without going into the question of negligence.

Similarly, the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, has held as under:

The scheme as envisaged u/s 163A, in our opinion, leaves no manner of doubt that by reason thereof the rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined finally.'' The amount of compensation payable under the aforementioned provisions is not to be altered or varied in any other proceedings. It does not contain any provisions providing for set off against a higher compensation unlike Section 140. In terms of the said provision, a distinct and specified class of citizens, namely, persons whose income per annum is Rs. 40,000/- or less is covered there under whereas Section 140 and 166 to all sections of society.

In the case of Gurmeet Singh v. Chandigarh Transport Undertaking and Ors. (2007) 146 P.L.R. 574, this Court after relying upon the aforesaid observations as given in Deepal Girishbhai Soni''s and Baldev Kumar Nayyer''s cases (supra) held as under:

In view of the Division bench judgment of this Court it has to be held that the persons whose annual income is more than Rs. 40,000/- will not be entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 163A of the Act as the same is a beneficial piece of legislation meant for a specified class of citizens. It is not open for a person to notionally scale down his income so as to invoke the provisions of Section 163A of the Act and therefore, to defeat the very object of Section 163A of the Act.

Thus, it is not open for a person to notionally scale down his income so as to invoke the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act and therefore, to defeat the very object of Section 163A of the Act. In the present case, the petitioner has specifically claimed his income @ Rs. 15,000/- per month and parties have also led evidence in this regard. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was right in dismissing the application moved by the petitioner which does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Relying upon the aforesaid judgments, I find no merit in this case and the same is dismissed.