Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 23 (PNJ)

Naresh Kumar v. Vikas Rathi

2009-01-07

RAJESH BINDAL

body2009
Judgment Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned court below in an application filed by the petitioner for restricting his claim to an annual income of Rs. 36,000/- in a claim petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, `the Act) for grant of compensation. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner had filed a petition for claiming compensation on account of injuries and permanent disability suffered by him in a road accident. It was mentioned therein that he was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month. The petition was initially filed under Section 166 of the Act. During the pendency thereof, with the permission of the Court, the same was converted into a petition under Section 163-A of the Act. However, inadvertently, the amount of income, as was shown in the petition, was not amended. Prayer in the application was made to restrict the claim while treating the income of the petitioner at Rs. 36,000/- per annum as against Rs. 4,000/- per month, already mentioned. The application having been rejected, the order has been impugned in the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation and has to be interpreted liberally. Once the petitioner was seeking to abandon part of his claim, no objection to that should have been taken. Reliance was placed upon Gurmeet Kaur and others v. Hardeep Singh and others, 2005(2) RCR(Civil) 149 : 2006 ACJ 218 and Ravinder and another v. Subhash Chand and others, 2006(2) RCR(Civil) 525. He further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Saroj and others, 2007(1) RCR(Civil) 152 opined that even if a claim had been made at a higher income, the claimant cannot be disqualified to lay claim under Section 163-A of the Act, if the Tribunal comes to a finding that the income of the claimant was below Rs. 40,000/- per annum. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that the petitioner should not be permitted to amend his claim at this stage as the same is not permissible. 40,000/- per annum. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that the petitioner should not be permitted to amend his claim at this stage as the same is not permissible. Once the petition had been filed under Section 166 of the Act, the same cannot be permitted to be converted to Section 163-A of the Act, as it will cause prejudice to the respondents. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned court below dismissed the petition for the reason that in the claim petition, the petitioner had claimed that his income was Rs. 4,000/- per month. It is not disputed that his earlier petition under Section 166 of the Act was permitted to be converted into a petition under Section 163-A of the Act. The stand of the petitioner is that inadvertently, this amendment could not be sought at that time. In fact, what he had stated was that his income was Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 4,000/- per month. Now he wants to restrict the same to Rs. 3,000/- per month only. This Court in Ravinders case (supra) had dismissed a petition where the Tribunal had permitted to convert a petition filed under Section 166 to Section 163-A of the Act by restricting the income to Rs. 40,000/- per annum. In Gurmeet Kaurs case (supra) as well, similar view was expressed by this Court by opining that the Act is actually a beneficial piece of legislation for the sufferers in the road accidents and has to be interpreted liberally. Where a claimant wants to restrict his claim by abandoning some part of the claim, he should not be debarred from that. 5. A full Bench of Karnataka High Court in Guruanna Vadi and another v. The General Manage, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and another, 2001(3) RCR(Civil) 693, while dealing with an identical issue, opined as under : "Question No. 6 : The only bar provided for exercising an option in the matter of filing a claim petition for compensation is to be found in Section 163-B which states, `where a person is entitled to claim compensation under Section 140 and Section 163-A, he shall file the claim under either of the said sections and not under both. There is no prohibition in any other provision of the Act from switching over the claim made under Sections 166 to 163-A provided the accident took place on 14.10.1994 or thereafter because Section 163-A came on the statute book only with effect from 14.10.1994, subject of course, to the claimants satisfying other requirements such as the outer income limit mentioned in the Second Schedule. Section 163 is a beneficial legislation and provides for payment of compensation based on structured formula without requiring pleading or establishing that the death or permanent disability in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or negligence or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or any other person. Such a beneficial legislation has to be given a liberal interpretation. Therefore we answer this question in the affirmative by holding that a claimant can move the Court for amendment of his claim petition filed under Section 166 to that of a petition under Section 163-A at any stage of the proceedings and it would be for the concerned court to pass an order on that application in accordance with law." 6. A Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.s case (supra) had even gone to the extent of holding that merely because a claim has been set up on the basis of higher income will not debar the claimant to be disqualified to lay claim under Section 163-A of the Act, which is a beneficial piece of legislation, in case the Tribunal comes to the finding that the income of the claimant was below Rs. 40,000/- per annum. 7. As in the present case, the petitioner has already been permitted to convert his petition originally filed under Section 166 of the Act to a petition under Section 163-A of the Act, he should not be deprived of the benefits thereof because in the petition the income was mentioned at Rs. 4,000/- per month. Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner to restrict his claim by treating his income at Rs. 36,000/- per annum deserves to be accepted. Ordered accordingly. The revision petition stands disposed of. Order accordingly.