United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Nanuben and Others

Honourable Mr. Justice K.S. Jhaveri

By way of this appeal, appellant - Insurance Company has challenged the order dated 15.12.1999 passed below Exh. 4 in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.1015 of1999, filed u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Godhara, whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,57,000/together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of this application till the realization. Learned advocate for the appellant has 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 failed to appreciate the said aspect and proceeded with the hearing of the application filed u/s 163-A of the Act inspite of the fact thatthe Act prohibited entertainment of application filedunder Section 163-A of the Act, if the annual incomeexceeds Rs.40,000/-. In support of his submission, hehas relied upon the decision of Apex Court in case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, .

Learned counsel for the respondent was not in a position to controvert the above position of law.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties andperused the record as well as order passed by theTribunal below application, filed u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is not in dispute thatthe claim petition has been filed u/s 163-A of the Act. A specific averment was made by theclaimant in the claim petition that the monthly incomeof the deceased was Rs.4,000/-at the time of death.Therefore, admittedly his annual income would exceedRs.40,000/-. In this context, it would be pertinent tonote that Schedule-II appended to Section 163-A, specifically deals with claim petitions arising out ofcases where in annual income does not exceedRs.40,000/-. In other words, a claim petition filedunder Section 163-A of the Act could be entertainedonly 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 claimpetition, filed u/s 163-A of the Act, if theannual income exceeds Rs.40,000/-.

In the instant case, as discussed herein above, theannual income of the deceased was of Rs.48,000/-, whichis evident from the averments made in the claimpetition itself. It is required to be noted that theTribunal has also recorded the said fact in its award.Considering the principle, laid down in DeepalGirishbhai Soni''s Case (Supra), the Tribunal isrequired to consider the matter afresh. Accordingly, the order 15.12.1999 passed below Exh.4 inMotor Accident Claims Petition No.1015 of 1999 isquashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to theTribunal for considering the matter afresh. TheTribunal is directed to decide the matter, within twoyear from the date of receipt of this order. However,to protect the interest of the original applicants, theTribunal shall invest the entire amount lying with itin FDR on long terms basis and the interest accruedthereon shall be accumulated. But, if any amount hasbeen already withdrawn, necessary set-of will be given.Orders regarding disbursement of the amount of depositshall be passed by the Tribunal at the time of disposalof the final claim petition. The appeal stands disposedof accordingly. R & P to be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.