1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA First Appeal No.181 of 2003 Shri Kashinath Betu Gawas (since deceased) through legal heirs: a. Shri Manohar Kahsinath Gawas, son, b. Smt. Manila Manohar Gawas, daughter-in-law c. Shri Ratnakar Kashinath Gawas, son. d. Smt. Resha Ratnakar Gawas-daughter-in-law e. Shri Shivnath Kashinath Gawas, son f. Smt. Swati Shivnath Gawas, daughter-in-law, g. Shri Mahesh Kashinath Gawas, son all having their address at H. No.1647, Gurukrupa Colony, Harvalem, Sanquelim, Goa. ... Appellants V e r s u s National Insurance Company Limited, having office at 1st floor, Town Centre, Bicholim, Goa. Shri Prabhakar Sham Devidas (deleted as expired without any heirs) .... Respondents Ms. R. Kantak, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. J. J. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram: A. P. Lavande, J. Date: 13th October, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT: This appeal has been filed challenging order dated 12/3/2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mapusa in Claim Petition No.52 of 2000 dismissing the claim petition holding that the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by the appellants/claimants was not maintainable since the deceased Sushant K. Gawas, the son of the claimant was himself the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. Indisputably, at the time of the accident, Sushant was not the driver of the truck but was traveling in the truck which was insured with the respondent. 2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal held that the claim petition under Section 163-A was not maintainable. 3 3. When the appeal came up for hearing Ms. Kantak,learned counsel for the appellants/claimants was called upon to satisfy as to how the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants was maintainable since the income of the deceased was mentioned as Rs.10,000/- per month in the claim petition. In terms of second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a claim petition under Section 163-A is maintainable in case of fatal accident/injury and only if the annual income of the victim is Rs.40,000/-. 4. Ms. Kantak fairly conceded that the claim petition filed under Section 163-A was not maintainable. However, placing reliance upon the judgment of High Court of Kerala in the case of Mini Philip, wife of P. Philip and others Vs. P.J. Mathew & others,CDJ 2010 Ker HC 242 Ms. Kantak submitted that the appellants/claimants be permitted to convert the claim 4 petition under Section 163-A into claim petition under Section 166 as has been permitted by the Kerala High Court. 5. Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since there is no limitation for filing an application under Section 166 of the Act, the prayer made by Ms. Kantak be not granted. 6. In view of the concession made by Ms. Kantak and in view of the clear language of Section 163-A and second Schedule to the Act, the claim petition filed by the claimant was not maintainable. I am not inclined to accede to the prayer of Ms. Kantak to permit conversion of the application under Section 163-A into one under Section 166 of the Act, since in an application under Section 166, the claimant has to specifically plead rashness and negligence in contradiction to Section 163A of the Act. 5 Moreover, there is no limitation for filing an application under Section 166 of the Act. 7. In view of the above, it is held that the claim petition filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Act is not maintainable. Consequently, the impugned order dated 12/3/2003 is quashed and set aside. Needless to mention that the claimants are at liberty to file appropriate proceedings as may be available in law. A. P. Lavande, J. Ap/-