FAO NO. 4549 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO NO. 4549 of 2011 Date of order: 31.10.2011 Smt. Khazani ..... Appellant Versus Sanjay and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. S.N. Pillania, Advocate for the appellant. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is claimant's appeal against the award dated 04.05.2011 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jind (for short 'learned Tribunal') vide which the claim petition of the appellant had been dismissed. Smt. Khazani, claimant had filed the claim petition under the provisions of section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries, she suffered in an accident, arising out of the use of scooter bearing registration no. HR-31A/7089. After completion of the pleadings, learned Tribunal framed issues on 15.10.2009 and took evidence of the parties. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, he dismissed the claim petition vide award dated 04.05.2011 for the sole reason that the claim petition is not maintainable FAO NO. 4549 of 2011 2 under the provisions of section 163-A of the Act. Learned Tribunal has considered the provisions of section 163-A of the Act, which come with the caption “Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis” He had noticed that a claim petition under this provision would lie in case of death or permanent disablement only. For the definition of permanent disability, this section refers to Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Learned Tribunal has taken into account the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act also and has finally found that the petitioner has not suffered any permanent disablement on account of use of vehicle and, therefore, her claim petition is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the appellant has brought this appeal. I have heard Mr. S.N. Pillania, learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record. There can be no dispute regarding the fact that the provisions of section 163-A of the Act only cover the cases of death or permanent disablement. The claimant in this case has asserted that she had suffered injuries in the accident. She nowhere claimed that these injuries resulted in permanent disablement. No evidence worth the name has been led to prove permanent disablement, for the definition of which one has to go to the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Learned counsel for the appellant has admitted at the bar that the injuries suffered by Smt. Khazani in the accident were simple. FAO NO. 4549 of 2011 3 In these circumstances, no exception can be taken to the decision rendered by learned Tribunal. Therefore, I find no merit in the appeal and consequently dismiss the same in limine. 31.10.2011 ( Vijender Singh Malik ) dinesh Judge