[?II^~?i-1i;-^{:^p^: CffiCUBHAa'IXi^ykRa.^^BJ^BI^ MJLSC^Sao. <^^OP2010 (AKI^&L^AI-UEa^A^R&.A.lSjQOd^ : ^ , ,. M^&i J^S&A^S^mSBKSSM^W^^^mS^.MQ'S^^SmCS^^^^ AiMsdUant (Non- Applicant No. 2) gi^. ^..^.----.-•••^"^^^i—"—is^8aa® pr^ia ^ ^^B^^....^ D3ied......^\-.U.0....... " - ^ ^ Inited India Insuraxic^ Company I^inited. Through Ifs Davisional-Nteiaag.er,Divisional- Nain l^oad, fewba, Tah. SsDistt.-Kofba (CG) 3Resi;ioxi.dei3t& ^ApplicantNo.l) € . (Applicant No.2) (N^N-AppMcaiit 'No.l) :3. <\ Kayifca. Bai W/0>- Late Tameshwar Jagat, Caste - <^md, ^e^^E^rot - 2iye^s, i3yxga Bai 1^/o ~ Late Ra^ninath Pfasad^a^d aboEUt -55jears. Botfa. are R/Q- Vitla^-Pakana, P-S.-Akaltara, X>istL - Jaiygir- Chamt>a(C.G4 Vishram Prasad Kaivertya S/0 — Bahadyr ICsavertya, R/0 ^- Akaltara, Distt. - Janj^r- Oian^pa^C.G-) -/r ^ HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR M^A^IC) No. 974 of 2010 Appellant United India Insurance Company Limited Versus Respondents Kavita Bai & others MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT, 1988 DB: Hon'ble Shri I. M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Shri O. P. Sahu, Advocate for the respondents No.l and 2. Shri Vivek Rathore, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ORDERCQral) ( Passed on this 12th day ofAugust, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi J. The instant appeal, filed by the appellant/Insurance Company arises from the award dated 23.3.2010, passed by the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir Champa in Claim Case No. 99/2009, awarding a sum of Rs. 4,15,000/-to the claimants as compensation, holding the insurance company and owner asjointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. The facts, in brief, as projected by the claimants are that on 1.6.2009 deceased Tameshwer Jagat was driving the vehide - Tractor, bearing registration No. C.G. ll-A/1618, whifch was owned by the non-applicant No.l and it was insiAred with the present appellant/non-applicant No.2. While driving the tractor, accidentally it turned turtle and Tameshwer Jagat came under the tractor.As a result ofthis accident Tameshwer Jagat died on spot. 3. The claimants, being legal heirs of the deceased, filed a claim case under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 20,00,OOO/- on the submission that the yearly income of the deceased was Rs. 1,20,000/-, wherein the above award was passed by the Tribunal. 4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the record and the findings ofthe Tribunal. 5. We are of the opinion that since the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988 and the deceased, who was a Driver, his income was described as Rs. 1,20,000/~ per annum, which is exceeding the maximum limit mentioned in Schedule -II i.e. Rs. 40,000/-, the claim petition was not maintainable. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Baroda1 in paragraphs 46 and 67 has held as under : (<46. Section 163-A which has an overriding effect provides for special provisions as to payment of compensation on structure- formula basis. Sub-section (1) of Section 163-A contains non obstante clause in terms whereof the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer is liable to pay in the 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. Sub-section (2) of Section 163-A is in pari material with sub-section (3) ofSection 140 ofthe Act." <<67. We, therefore, are of the opinion that Kodala has correctly been decided. However, we do not agree with the findings in Kodala that if a person invokes provisions of Section 163-A, the annual income of Rs. 40,000 per annum shall be treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceedings under Section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct (2004) 5 SCC 385 -, scheme, only those whose annual income is up to Rs. 40,000 can take the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act.?? 7. In view of the above, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned award dated 23.3.2010. No order as to costs. However, this will not debar the claimants to file a fresh claim petition under the provisions of law other than Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation. Since the claim petition itself was not maintainable before the Claims Tribunal under Section 163-A of the Act, 1988, as such the claimants cannot be kept remediless. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge