C.R.No.2880 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2880 of 2009. Decided on August 25, 2009. Kamal and others .. Petitioners VERSUS M.Loganathan and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for the respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr.R.M.Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.3. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Since respondent Nos.1 & 2, are ex parte before the lower Court and they are proforma respondents, their service, is therefore, dispensed with. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for challenging the order dated 11.04.2009, by virtue of which the application filed by the claimants-petitioners before the lower Court to amend the income of deceased from . . . 1 C.R.No.2880 of 2009 Rs.4,000/- per month to Rs.3300/- per month, has been declined in a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act'). In order to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Act, the factum of negligence of driver of the offending vehicle is not required to be established and compensation can be paid if the monthly income of the deceased does not go beyond Rs.3300/-. The claims Tribunal has declined the said amendment, inter alia, on the ground that it would tantamount to withdrawing of admission and that the witnesses have already been examined. Mr.R.M.Gupta, counsel for insurance Company has opposed the revision petition contending that withdrawal of admission will cause prejudice to Company. After considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that Section 163-A of the Act, is a social security provision which gives a right to the claimant to claim income of a person who has died in an accident earning Rs.40,000/- per month, not to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Taking into consideration the object of Section 163-A of the Act, it appears to be a case where the provisions that admission once made cannot be permitted to be withdrawn is not applicable. This case would fall in a category where a claimant waives a particular right or gives up a claim in order to derive the benefit of statutory provisions. . . . 2 C.R.No.2880 of 2009 In peculiar circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed and the order dated 11.04.2009, is hereby set aside. The income of son (PW.1 Kamal) of the deceased is permitted to be corrected as Rs.3300/- per month, instead of Rs.4,000/- per month. Disposed of. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 25, 2009. rka . . . 3