IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 277 of 2005 Date of decision : 15.12.2008 Ganga Ram and others Appellants Versus Kishori Lal and another Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellants: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent No2.: Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This appeal arises out of the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunla, Kinnaur Division at Rampur Bushahr, dated 15.1.2005 rejecting the petition filed by the claimants under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On going through the record, it was found that the income of the deceased was alleged to be Rs.10,000/- per month from business and Rs.5,000/- from horticulture, i.e. Rs.15,000/- in all. The Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Baroda, (2004) 5 SCC 385, has clearly held that the benefit of the provisions of Section 163 A of the Motor 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. Vehicles Act cannot be availed of in a case where the income of the victim is more than Rs.40,000/- per annum. In this regard, the Apex Court made the following observations in para 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 proceeding under Section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is upto Rs.40,000/- can take the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act.” It is, therefore, more than obvious that the petition filed by the claimants under Section 163-A was not maintainable. Faced with this situation, Shri Romesh Verma, learned counsel for the claimants, states that he wants to withdraw the claim petition with liberty reserved to takeout other proceedings in accordance with law. Prayer is genuine. The same is allowed and the original claim petition is allowed to be withdrawn, since the same itself was not maintainable, with liberty reserved to the appellants to take out any other proceeding which may be maintainable in accordance with law. December 15, 2008 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. ™