IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3591 of 2009 Date of decision : December 17, 2009 National Insurance Company Ltd. ....Petitioner versus Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hissar and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Naveen Kapur, Advocate, for the petitioner None for the respondents L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) National Insurance Company Limited has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 22.5.2007, Annexure P/3, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hissar (in short, the Tribunal) whereby application moved by claimants (respondent nos. 2 to 5) has been allowed. Claimants filed claim petition under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, the Act) claiming compensation for the death of Sadhu Ram caused in a motor vehicular accident. Sadhu Ram was husband of respondent no. 2 and father of respondent nos. 3 to 5. In the claim petition, income of the deceased was alleged to be Rs 4000/- per month. In the witness box also respondent no. 2 claimant asserted that the income of the deceased was Rs 4000/- per month. However, realising that Civil Revision No. 3591 of 2009 -2- claim petition under section 163-A of the Act would not be maintainable if the income of the deceased was more than Rs 40,000/- per annum, in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others versus United India Insurance Company Limited, 2004 (II) ACJ 934, the claimants moved application for abandonment of claim beyond Rs 40,000/-. The learned Tribunal vide impugned order has allowed said application of the claimants. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been filed by the Insurance Company with which the vehicle stood insured. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file whereas none has appeared for the respondents in spite of service which was completed as far back as on 29.10.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon three judgments of this Court namely Himachal Road Transport Corporation versus Baldev Kumar Nayyer and others, 2007 ACJ 678, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Annie Varkey and others, 2007 ACJ 1827, Ram Sarup versus Lakhpat Singh and others, (2009-1) PLR 633, contended that application moved by the claimants (respondent Nos. 2 to 5) could not have been allowed. There is considerable merit in the contention. In all the aforesaid three judgments of this Court, it has been laid down that the claimants cannot restrict their claim in claim petition under section 163-A of the Act by scaling down the income of the deceased. It was observed that claimants cannot abandon or forego the part of the claim by restricting the income to Rs 40,000/- per annum. Civil Revision No. 3591 of 2009 -3- In view of these three consistent judgments of this Court including judgment by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Baldev Kumar Nayyer (supra), the impugned order cannot be sustained being completely illegal. For the reasons recorded herein, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 22.5.2007 (Annexure P/3) passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hissar is set aside and the application moved by respondent nos. 2 to 5 before the Tribunal stands dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 17, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'