Civil Revision No. 1629 of 2009. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 1629 of 2009. DECIDED ON : 31.8.2009. Sukhwinder Kaur and another Petitioners. VERSUS Kuldip Singh and another Respondents. CORAM : Hon'ble Mr.. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for petitioners. Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,J. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 25.2.2009 (Anneuxre P-6) passed by learned Motor Accident Tribunal, Gurdaspur whereby application moved by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) for amendment of claim petition was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a claim petition under Sections 163-A and 167 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short “The Act”) for grant of Civil Revision No. 1629 of 2009. 2 compensation on account of death of Baljit Singh, their son. In the claim petition in the column of the monthly income of the deceased, the claimants mentioned Rs.3500/- . However, the averments of the petitioners were disputed by the respondents in their written statement. The petitioners moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code seeking amendment in para No.5 of the petition regarding monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/-. The claimants had sought an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month. The said application was thus declined by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that learned Tribunal was not correct in rejecting the application of the claimants. The Tribunal while declining the application of the claimants held that the claimants wanted to exaggerated the income of the deceased and, therefore, in such a situation the amendment application which was filed by them could not have been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Saroj and others, 2008 ACJ 594 and a Single Bench judgment in Gurmeet Kaur and others Vs. Hardeep Singh and another, 2005 (2) Punjab Law Reporter 503, submitted that there is no bar for claiming amendment to reduce the monthly income of the deceased to the one below Rs.40000/- per annum and, therefore, the Tribunal had no right in declining the application for amendment of the Civil Revision No. 1629 of 2009. 3 petition. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the Tribunal and submitted that there being no merit in the application, the amendment was rightly declined by the Tribunal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file very carefully and thoroughly. The issue regarding whether the claim which has initially been claimed in the claim petition by the petitioners that the annual income of the deceased which was Rs.40,000/- per annum were entitled to make a claim restricting it only for Rs.25000/- as annual income by seeking aforesaid amendment and this Court while analyzing the provisions of the Act held that there is no bar for claiming such an amendment in the application. The Division Bench of this Court in Saroj's case (supra) in para 6 of the judgment had held as under:- “ The judgment does not lay down a law that merely by setting up a claim on the basis of higher income, the claimants would be disqualified to lay a claim under Section 163-A of the Act. Moreover, it appears from the ratio of that judgment that the provisions of section 163-A of the Act being beneficial piece of legislation in nature would not act as a bar in a case where the Tribunal comes to the finding that the income is below Rs.40,000 per year. Civil Revision No. 1629 of 2009. 4 As regards the second limb of the submission of learned counsel questioning the maintainability of claim petition under Section 149 of the Act, the contention appears to be absolutely irrelevant as this section relates to requirements of policies and extent of liabilities. Moreover, the insurance of the offending vehicle is not in question. Further the breach of condition of policy is not in question either. The FAO No. 2184 of 2006, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed at the threshold.” Similar view was taken by a Single Bench of this Court in Gurmeet Kaur's case (supra) In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The Tribunal shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. 31.8.2009 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) Anoop JUDGE