FAO No. 4919 of 2006 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 4919 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.2.2010 National Insurance Company Limited .. Appellant v. Mohinder Kaur alias Mondo and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 4. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The Insurance Company is in appeal against the award dated 10.6.2006, passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (for short, `the Tribunal'). Briefly, the facts are that on 9.6.2004, Tarsem Lal (deceased) was coming on his Vespa Scooter from Sangrur towards Bhiwanigarh. When he reached in the area of village Roshanwala, he found that some vehicles were coming from the opposite side with their head beams on. Due to the flash of these head lights, when he applied brakes, the scooter went out of his control. He fell down and received injuries. Ultimately, Tarsem Lal succumbed to the injuries. Respondents No. 1 to 3-claimants filed a claim petition on account of the death of Tarsem Lal. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,09,000/- as compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant raised sole contention that the claim petition was filed by the respondents-claimants in the present case under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, `the Act'). The same was not maintainable considering the fact that the pleaded case of the respondents- claimants was that the deceased was earning more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum. In FAO No. 4919 of 2006 [2] terms of the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act, the pre-condition is that the deceased should not have income more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum. As in the present case, the income claimed was more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum, the claim petition itself was not maintainable under the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act and deserved to be dismissed. As the learned Tribunal has considered and accepted the same, the award deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no bar in scaling down the income for the purpose of claiming compensation even if a deceased was earning more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum. In the present case, in the statement made by the appellant, i.e., widow of the deceased (respondent No. 1), it was specifically stated that the income of the deceased may be treated as Rs. 40,000/- per annum. Keeping that fact in view and also a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Saroj and others, (2007-1) 145 PLR 601 and Full Bench of Karnataka High Court in Guruanna Vadi and another v. The General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and another, 2001(3) RCR (Civil) 693, it was submitted that the learned Tribunal had rightly accepted the claim petition and determined the amount of compensation payable to the respondents-claimants, which does not call for any interference. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. The only legal issue in the present case is as to whether the claim petition filed by the claimants can be entertained under Section 163-A of the Act, in case initially the income of the deceased is claimed to be more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum, however, subsequently the same is either limited to Rs. 40,000/- per annum or determined by the Tribunal as such, for the purpose of claiming compensation. While dealing with a similar issue, a Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) opined that the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act being a beneficial piece of legislation cannot act as bar in case where the Tribunal comes to a finding that the income of the deceased was below Rs. 40,000/- per annum. The Full Bench of Karnataka High Court in Guruanna Vadi and another's case (supra) opined that Section 163-A of the Act applies to the ciritzens whose income is Rs. 40,000/- per annum or less. A personal having higher income can claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Act by reducing his income to Rs. 40,000/- per annum. Paragraph 33 of the judgment can be referred to for the purpose: FAO No. 4919 of 2006 [3] “33. Question No.4: The Legislature intended to extend the benefit of this provision to a chosen class of persons. The intention to limit it to a certain class is exemplified in the Schedule appended to the statute. The schedule forms part of the statute and it often gives the details and forms for working out the policy underlying the statute. The division of a statute into section and Schedules is a mere matter of convenience and the Schedule, therefore, has to be treated as a substantive enactment which, sometimes, may even go beyond the scope of a section to which the schedule is appended. The Second Schedule limits the operation of the section to a limited class of persons whose income is Rs. 40,000/- or less per annum. The prescription of the outer limit of Rs. 40,000/- under the Schedule does not take away the right of the person to claim compensation under any other provision of the Act. The Legislature in its wisdom has thought it fit to provide the luxury of choice to persons whose income does not exceed Rs. 40,000/- in order to obviate the need for such persons to involve themselves in a long drawn litigation, the cost and consequences of which may work to their disadvantage and ultimate failure of justice. Such a beneficial provision which is more in the nature of advancement of social justice, keeping in view a select class of citizens, cannot be construed by Courts as applicable to all class of citizens. But, in case the person with the higher income notionally brings down his income to Rs. 40,000/- in order to present his claim under Section 163-A the same can be permitted.” No judgment taking a view contrary to the above, was cited by learned counsel for the appellant. In the facts of the present case, it has been noticed by the learned Tribunal in the award itself that respondent No. 1-claimant (widow of the deceased), in her statement got recorded on 17.3.2006 stated that her husband's annual income may be treated as Rs. 40,000/-. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the statement suffered by the claimant, determined his income at Rs. 40,000/- per annum and after carrying out necessary deductions and applying the multiplier, the amount of compensation was assessed. If the facts of the present case are considered in the light of enunciation of law, as referred to above, no fault can be found with the entertainment of petition filed by the claimants under Section 163- A of the Act. FAO No. 4919 of 2006 [4] Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 9.2.2010 mk