Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 179 (PNJ)

Ram Sarup v. Lakhpat Singh

2009-01-22

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2009
Judgment Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. 1. Brief facts of the present revision petition are that the petitioner-claimant filed the claim petition under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended up to date claiming a compensation of Rs. 4,50,000 against the respondents on account of his permanent disability suffered by him. 2. The claimant moved an application before Claims Tribunal for amendment in the claim application that his income was wrongly stated as Rs. 15,000 per month and in fact his monthly income is hardly Rs. 3,000 and that his income has, thus, inadvertently been shown so and the same requires to be rectified. 3. The said application was contested by the respondents. 4. The Tribunal vide its impugned order held that application for amendment was filed when the parties have already led their evidence and in these circumstances, the claimant cannot be permitted to change the pleadings and rejected the amendment application. 5. Challenging the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the amendment sought was for correction of a typographical error and the same was liable to be corrected. In support of his case, the learned counsel relied upon a judgment of this court in the case of Jaibir v. Mahender Singh, 2007 (1) Punjab Law Journal 567. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. However, I find no merit in this petition. 7. The judgment cited by the learned counsel is of no help to the petitioner as the same is distinguishable on facts. In Himachal Road Trans. Corpn. v. Baldev Kumar Nayyer, 2007 ACJ 678 (P&H), a Division Bench of this court has laid down as under: "Where during the course of proceedings before Tribunal a prayer was made that the petitions be treated as petitions under section 163-A of the Act by restricting the income of the deceased/injured to less than Rs. 40,000 per annum. The Tribunal accepted this prayer and has allowed the petitions by treating the same as petitions under section 163-A of the Act. It was contended that in view of the claim of the claimants themselves that the income of the deceased/injured was more than Rs. 40,000 per annum, the Tribunal was not justified in treating the petitions to be petitions under section 163-A of the Act and awarding compensation without going into the question of negligence." 8. It was contended that in view of the claim of the claimants themselves that the income of the deceased/injured was more than Rs. 40,000 per annum, the Tribunal was not justified in treating the petitions to be petitions under section 163-A of the Act and awarding compensation without going into the question of negligence." 8. Similarly, the Honble Apex Court of India in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004 ACJ 934 (SC), has held as under: "(51) The scheme as envisaged under section 163-A, in our opinion, leaves no manner of doubt that by reason thereof the rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined finally. Amount of compensation payable under the aforementioned provisions is not to be altered or varied in any other proceedings. It does not contain any provision providing for set off against a higher compensation unlike section 140. In terms of the said provision, a distinct and specified class of citizens, namely, persons whose income per annum is Rs. 40,000 or less is covered thereunder whereas sections 140 and 166 to all sections of society." 9. In the case of Gurmeet Singh v. Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, 2008 ACJ 2303 (P&H), this court after relying upon the aforesaid observations as given in Deepal Girishbhai Sonis case (supra) and Baldev Kumar Nayyers case (supra) held as under: "In view of the Division Bench judgment of this court it has to be held that the persons whose annual income is more than Rs. 40,000 will not be entitled to invoke the provisions of section 163-A of the Act as the same is a beneficial piece of legislation meant for a specified class of citizens. It is not open for a person to notionally scale down his income so as to invoke the provisions of section 163-A of the Act and, therefore, to defeat the very object of section 163-A of the Act." 10. Thus, it is not open for a person to notionally scale down his income so as to invoke the provisions of section 163-A of the Act and, therefore, to defeat the very object of section 163-A of the Act. In the present case, the petitioner has specifically claimed his income at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per month and parties have also led evidence in this regard. In the present case, the petitioner has specifically claimed his income at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per month and parties have also led evidence in this regard. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was right in dismissing the application moved by the petitioner which does not call for any interference by this court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Relying upon the aforesaid judgments, I find no merit in this case and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.