FAO No.4226 of 2006 1 IN THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH X-obj No.68-CII of 2002 FAO No.4226 of 2006 Date of Decision: 15.09.2010 National Insurance Company Ltd. ....Appellant Versus Vasu Dev Garg & ors. ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Pardeep Bedi, Advocate, and, Mr.Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant, None for the respondents. **** K.Kannan J. (Oral) 1. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company denying the maintainability of the petition in a case where the claimant urged that his salary was in excess of Rs.14,175/- per month and consequently, his annual income was more than Rs.40,000/-. The case arose out of a collision of a passenger car in which the claimant was driving and the truck which was stationary. No case was filed against the owner or the insurer of the truck but the claimant stayed contended with making the owner of the car and the insurer alone as responsible for answering the claim. Since the plea was made under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the issue regarding negligence was not considered at all. In terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepal Girish Bai Soni Vs. United India FAO No.4226 of 2006 2 Insurance Company Limited 2004 ACJ 934, a claim petition cannot be legally prosecuted if the status of the claimant as regards to his income is more than Rs.40,000/- per annum. There is no representation for the claimant and there is no means of knowing whether the claimant could be interested in scaling down his plea that his income was anywhere less than Rs.40,000/- per annum. 2. The claim petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 3. The claimants will be at liberty to prosecute a petition by making the insurer and the owner of the truck also as a party, if so advised and could prosecute a petition afresh under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The disposal of this appeal shall not bar the above said petition. 4. The award of the Tribunal agaiinst the insurer is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The cross appeal filed by the claimant for enhancement is dismissed for non-prosecution. 15.09.2010 (K.Kannan) sailesh Judge