IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO(MVA) No.172 of 2003 Date of decision:6.11.2008 National Insurance Company Ltd …..Appellant Versus Krishna Devi & others …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice: R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice: Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents No 1 & 2: Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. Per Surjit Singh, J (Oral) This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby allowing a petition under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- has been awarded as compensation in favour of respondents (claimants). Main ground on which the reversal of the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is sought is that the income of the deceased in this case was more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum and, therefore, the petition under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was not maintainable. 2. There is a judgment of a Division Bench of this court based on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepal Girishbhai Sonii & others Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd, Baroda (2004) 5 SCC 385, to the effect, that where the pleaded income of the deceased or the injured is more than Rs. 40,000/- per 1 Whether reporter of local papers are allowed to see the judgment ? annum, the petition under section 163-A is not maintainable. The Division Bench of this Court has delivered the aforesaid judgment in Sukhwant Kaur & others Vs. Sher Singh & another, FAO No. 410 of 2002 decided on 8th May, 2008. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, after going through the aforesaid judgment dated 8th May, 2008, has sought to withdraw the main petition itself with liberty to seek remedy under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Counsel for the appellant has no objection to the allowing of the prayer subject to just exceptions and adjustment of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- already paid, against the amount, if any, which the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation may award. 3. In view of the above stated position, we allow the appeal, set aside the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and dismissed the claim petition as withdrawn with liberty to the respondents/claimants to seek their remedy under Workmen Compensation Act. The liberty granted hereby is subject to just exceptions and pleas which may be available to the appellant. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. ( R.B. Misra ), J. ( Surjit Singh ), J. 6th November, 2008 (sl)