1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 757/2006 Smt. Tara Sharma & ors. vs. Rajesh Kumar & ors. Dated : 05.10.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Sandeep Mathur, for the appellants. Mr. Digvijay Mantri, for the respondents. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and Award dated 24th October, 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal- Additional District & Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award and relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed that even if the income of the claimants is more than 40,000/- per annum, they can also file claim petition under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. In support of this argument, he has cited the case of Haseena Sulthana & ors. vs. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. & anr. reported in 2007 ACJ 1832. 4. Learned Tribunal dismissed the claim of the appellants in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court given in the case of Deepal Gris Bhai vs. United India Insurance Co. reported in 2004 ACJ 934. The Hon'ble Apex Court in this case held:- 2 “We therefore, are of the opinion that Kodala's case, 2001 ACJ 827 (SC) has correctly been decided. However, we do not agree with the findings in Kodala (supra), that if a person invokes provisions of Section 163-A, the annual income of Rs. 40,000/- shall be treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceeding under Section 163-A being a social security provision providing for distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is to Rs. 40,000/- can take the benefit thereof. All the other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment of Haseena Sulthana & ors. (supra). Having perused this judgment, it appears as the learned counsel for the appellants has not gone through this judgment. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has categorically observed in Para 14 and 15 of the judgment as under:- “14.......The other important difference between sections 163-A and 140 of the Act is that under the latter only a fixed amount is payable and in respect of former the amount is payable under a structured formula basis which prescribed the upper income limit of Rs. 40,000 per annum. Therefore, if the income of the deceased or the victim exceeds Rs. 40,000/- per annum, he will not be in a position to file claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act. Hence the issue No.3 framed above is answered in the negative. 15. The Full Bench of Karnataka High Court in the decision reported in Guruanna Vadi v. General Manager, Karnataka State Road Trans. Corpn., 2001 ACJ 1528 (Karnataka), held at para 32 that the claim under section 163-A is not tenable where income of victim is/was more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum.” 6. Thus, it is clear from the perusal of the judgment of the Haseena Sulthana and others (supra) also that if the income of the victim is 3 /was more than 40,000/- per annum, the claim under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act is not tenable. I do not find any force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The judgment of the learned Tribunal is perfectly just and proper and it has rightly dismissed the claim of the claimants-appellants and to my firm view, it does not warrant any intervention. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed at the threshold and the same stands dismissed accordingly. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. Mak/- 80