IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO NO.328/2009. Date of Decision:16.4.2009. Daljit Kaur and others ..........Appellants Versus Iqbal Singh ..........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. PK Ganga,Advocate for the appellants-claimants. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). Appellants-claimants have preferred this appeal against the award dated 30.8.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa(for short Tribunal) whereby their claim petition bearing no.35 of 2005, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs on account of death of Labh Singh in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 25.2.2004 involving Maruti Car No. DDB-579 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), was dismissed. Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged in the claim petition are that on 25.2.2004 at 6.00 pm deceased Labh Singh was driving the offending vehicle and when he reached Kalanwali, due to damaged road he took a slight turn but on account of mechanical fault he lost control over the offending vehicle which fell into a khal just adjacent to the road and turned turtle as a result of which deceased Labh Singh and Iqbal Singh (co-passenger and owner of the offending vehicle) received injuries. ON receipt of information, Karnail Singh, father of deceased Labh Singh alongwith one Balkaur Singh Sarpanch, Kuldeep Singh went FAO NO.328/2009. 2 to the spot and removed the injured to a Nursing Home, Dabwali, where injured Iqbal Singh was admitted. However, deceased Labh Singh was referred to Civil Hospital, Sirsa, but unfortunately he breathed his last on the way. The matter was reported to the police and on the basis of statement of Karnail Singh, father of deceased Labh Singh, rapat no.6 dated 26.2.2004 was recorded at PS Kalanwali. With these allegations claimants-appellants filed claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for short the Act)seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs from Iqbal Singh, owner of the offending vehicle. According to the claimants deceased Labh Singh, who was self employed was aged 30 years and was earning Rs.3 lac per annum besides earning Rs.5,000/- per month from dairy business. Another sum of Rs.60,000/- was claimed on account of funeral expenses. However, to bring the claim petition within the ambit of Section 163-A of the Act, the annual income of the deceased was restricted to Rs.35,000/-. Respondent Iqbal Singh filed written statement. He denied that on the fateful day he was accompanying the deceased Labh Singh. According to him, Karnail Singh father of the deceased had taken the offending vehicle for his personal use which was being driven by deceased Labh Singh, who was addicted to alcohol, in a rash and negligent manner and that the rapat in question was wrongly recorded. It was also alleged that the claimants had already received a compensation of Rs.2.60 lacs from Life Insurance Corporation of India for the death of deceased besides another sum of Rs.1 lac under the Devi Roopak Scheme. Issues were framed. Parties led evidence in support of their respective pleas. Learned Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of material available on record, dismissed the claim petition vide impugned award as not maintainable under Section 163-A of the Act, in view of the income of FAO NO.328/2009. 3 the deceased. Hence the present appeal. After hearing the learned counsel for the claimants-appellants, I find no illegality in the impugned award. In support of its claim petition, widow of the deceased appeared as PW1 and also examined HC Om Parkash as PW2 to prove the DDR No.6 dated 26.6.2004, copy of which was produced as Exh.P2. On the contrary respondent Iqbal Singh himself appeared as RW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.RW1/A. He also examined one Kuldeep Singh as RW2, who tendered his affidavit Ex.RW2/A stating therein that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. As already stated above, though according to the averments made in the claim petition, as well as in her affidavit Ex.P1, Daljit Kaur PW1 stated that annual income of her deceased husband was more than Rs.3 lacs, but to bring the claim petition under the purview of Section 163-A of the Act, his annual income was decreased/restricted to Rs.35,000/- per annum, which in my considered opinion, in view of settled law, has rightly been held to be not permissible by the learned Tribunal. Moreover, the deceased being the driver- tort feasor cannot be permitted to be a beneficiary. No other point has been urged. Dismissed. 16.4.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge