r? IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M. A. [C] No. /2011. IAPPBLLANTS: i CLAIMANT No. 1 CLAIMANT No.2 01. 02. ^^ ^..•••\l^--/ ..^%? ^-^^x^^ ,f;y ...·r"o^ '• 1^^-° VERSUS RESPONDENTS: ION-APPLICANTNo.1 NON- APPLICANT No.2 g.02 Meena Widow of Late Siyaram Kenvat, aged about 2Q years. Ku. Ranjana D/o Late Siyaram Kenvat, aged about 20 years Through her mother Meena Widow of Late Siyaram Kenvat, aged about 20 years. Both appellants are Kenvat by caste, R/o Bhadesar, TahsU: Janjgeer, District: Janjgeer- Chainpa, C.G. 01. CLAIMANT No.3 CLAIMANT No.4. ^03. ^04. Gokul Prasad S/o Mahadeo Agrawal, R/o Chandaniyapara Janjgeer, Police Station: Janjgeer, District: Janjgeer-Champa, C.G. United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch: Transport Nagar, Korba, Chhattisgarh. Maaharan Lal S/o Paras Ram Kenvat, aged about 50 years. Kamala Bai W/o Manharan Lal Kenvat, aged about 45 years. Both Respondents No.3 & 4 are Kenvat by Caste, R/o Bhadesar, Tahsil: Janjgeer, District: Janjgeer- Champa, Chhattisgarh. APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988. ftpp^ Yhlu^^ <^,..^^^^^1 ;„ ^LA^<utf.a2cs^d_Z'^L.^z~^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH^BILA^PUR M.A. fQNo. 91 of 2011 Appellants Meena & another Versus Respondents Gokul Prasad SB others MISC_APPEAL_UN_DER SECTIO^ 173_OFTHE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hontile Shri I. M. Quddusi 8s Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ Shri Mirza Kesher Beg, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondent No.l. Shri H. B. Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Ms Meera Jayaswal, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Shri Om P. Sahu, Advocate for the respondents No. 3 and 4. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 21st day ofApril, 2011 ) PerI. M. Quddusi J. The instant appeal, filed by the appellants/claimants arises from the award dated 23.6.2010, passed by the Chief Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir Champa in Claim Case No. 19/2010, dismissing the claim petition. The facts, in brief, as projected by the appellants/claiinants are that deceased Siyaram was engaged as Driver by the non-applicant No.l (Gokul Prasad) to drive/ the vehicle, bearing registration No. C.G. 11- B/0997. On 15.6.2009 at about 1.30 in the noon, deceased Siyaram, driving the vehicle, hit another vehicle-truck, bearing registration No. B.R. 47/1956, which was stationary at the road side at Banahill tuming. As a result of this accident Siyaram died. The claimants, being legal heirs of the deceased, filed a claim case under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation ofRs. 20,00,000/-. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record and the findings of the Tribunal. / 5. Since the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 and the deceased, who was a Driver, his income was described as Rs. 6000/- per month i.e. Rs. 72,000/- per year, which is exceeding the maximum limit mentioned in Schedule -II i.e. Rs. 40,000/-, the claim petition is not maintainable. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others Vs. United India InsuranceCo. Ltd. Baroda1 in paragraphs 46 and 67 has held as under : :, "46. Section 163-A which has'an overriding effect provides for special provisions as to payment of compensation on structure- formula basis. Sub-section (1) of Section 163-A ^contains non obstante clause in terms whereof the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer is liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use df motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victira, as the case may be. Sub-section (2) of Section 163-A is in pari material with sub-section (3) ofSection 140 ofthe Act." "67. We, therefore, are of the opinion that Kodala has correctly been decided. However, we do not agree with the findings in Kodala that if a person 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 proceedings under Section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is up to Rs. 40,000 can take the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be detennined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act." 7. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. The appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Thakur (2004) 5 SCC 385