1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 154 OF 2010 Radhakaur wd/o Mohansingh Sahgal Vs. Premlal Somaji Nandeshwar & Ano. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Asghar Hussain Adv for appellant. Mr. K. V. Kotwal Adv for respondent-2. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. DATED: 20 th APRIL , 2010. Heard. This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the original claimants. Deceased was driving scooter no. MH- 04/R-2343. There was a collision between the said scooter and the autorikshaw bearing no. MWY-8569. It was alleged that deceased was 30 years of age and was earning Rs.4000/- per month. Initially an 2 application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act came to be filed which later came to be converted under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned Judge of the Tribunal recorded the evidence and found that since the income of the deceased was Rs.4000/- p.m. it exceeds the limit of Rs.40,000/- and therefore application under Section 163-A could not lie. Holding so he dismissed the claim petition. Feeling aggrieved this appeal is preferred. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the application could not have been rejected. He submits that what the Tribunal should have done is that it ought to have been awarded compensation taking the income of the deceased at less than Rs.4000/- p.m. He submits infact that there was no evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. There may not be such evidence but the fact remains that the petitioners themselves have contended that the income was more than Rs.4000/- p.m. When the petitioners themselves contend that it was more than Rs.4000/-p.m. in no case application under Section 3 163-A could lie. Supreme Court in following reported case observed that where the income of the deceased exceeds above Rs. 40,000/- p. a. application under Section 163-A could not lie. Decision is reported in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2004 ACJ 934. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Court had considered this decision in United India Vs. Rehana Begum T.A.C. 2008(4) 517. After having gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court I find that such an application under Section 163-A is not at all maintainable. Under the circumstances I see no merit in the appeal same is dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk 4