FAO No.1083 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1083 of 2011 ( in MACT No.72 of 2009 Date of decision: 2.12.2011 Krishan Kumar ....Appellant Versus Lalit @ Fakira and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for the appellant ***** Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral) The appellant-injured Krishan Kumar has preferred the present appeal, assailing the award dated 4.11.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (for short 'the Tribunal), whereby his claim petition, filed on account of the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident on 29.3.2009, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. From the perusal of the case file, it emerges that the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (to be referred as 'the Act'). Section 163-A of the Act reads as under:- FAO No.1083 of 2011 2 “163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, “permanent disability” shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Worksmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923). (2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. (3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule.” In the present case, claimant appeared himself as PW1 and stated his monthly income as `35,00/-, which exceeds the statutory limit i.e. FAO No.1083 of 2011 3 `40,000/- per annum, for getting compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. Furthermore, there is no medical record regarding permanent disability. As a sequel of the above discussion, no interference is warranted in the well reasoned award passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in limine. 2.12.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE