FAO No.205 of 2008 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.205 of 2008 Decided on : July 21, 2009 Mukhtiar Kaur ... Appellant VERSUS Parminder Singh etc. ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Ashok Singla, Advocate for the appellant. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.5.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur, whereby, the petition claiming compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (herein for short `the Act') was dismissed on the ground that the deceased was having income more than Rs.40,000/- per annum. Heard. Perusal of the records reveals that the impugned judgment is well-founded and is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court delivered in case Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, 2004 ACJ 934, wherein, it has been held that Section 163-A of the Act is applicable only to the person whose FAO No.205 of 2008 [ 2 ] income is within Rs.40,000/- per year and it was observed as under:- “The scheme as envisaged under Section 163-A, in our opinion, leaves no manner of doubt that by reason thereof the rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined finally. The amount of compensation payable under the aforementioned provisions is not to be altered or varied in any other proceedings. It does not contain any provision providing for set off against a higher compensation unlike section 140. In terms of said provision, a distinct and specified class of citizens, namely persons whose income per annum is Rs.40,000/- or less, is covered thereunder whereas Sections 140 and 166 cater to all sections of society.” Again, while relying upon its own decision in the aforesaid case and taking into consideration all other relevant law on the subject, the Apex Court in case United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Kavita Chhabra and others, 2006 ACJ 1484 held as under:- “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's (supra), that if a person invokes provisions of Section 163-A, the annual income is Rs.40,000/- per annum shall be treated a cap. In our opinion, the proceedings under Section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for a distinction, only those whose annual income is upto Rs.40,000/- can take the benefit thereof. All the FAO No.205 of 2008 [ 3 ] other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter- XII of the Act.” In view of the law discussed above, no iota of doubt remains in my mind that the claim petition filed by the appellant pleading the income of the deceased at more than Rs.40,000/- per annum, could not lie under Section 163-A of the Act. As such, the impugned judgment which is shorn of any illegality or irregularity, does not warrant interference by this Court. Appeal dismissed. July 21, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE