Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 569 (PNJ)

Sadhna v. Kuldeep Singh

2009-03-24

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2009
Judgment Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. 1. The claimant has filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 7.1.2008 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon, whereby his application for amendment in the claim petition, to convert his application filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to a petition under section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act by restricting the income of the deceased to less than Rs. 40,000 per annum has been rejected by relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Himachal Road Trans. Corpn. v. Baldev Kumar Nayyer, 2007 ACJ 678 (P&H). 2. As per the averments made in the petition, husband of the petitioner met with an accident and died. Petitioner filed a claim petition mentioning the income of her husband as Rs. 24,000 per month. Thereafter, she moved an application for amendment in her claim. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon vide its order dated 13.8.2007 allowed the proposed amendment and income of her husband was reduced from Rs. 24,000 to Rs. 3,200 per month. Petitioner moved another application for converting her claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act into under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. The aforesaid application was contested by the respondents stating therein that the application was an abuse of process of law as the petitioner had earlier sought amendment with regard to the income of the deceased which was not opposed by the respondents in good faith as there was no income bar for filing a petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, whereas, if the petition is filed under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act annual income of the deceased could not be exceeding Rs. 40,000 per annum. The petitioner did not disclose his intention of getting the claim petition converted into one under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. At the time of seeking amendment with regard to income of the deceased by concealing his true intention, it was mentioned in the earlier application for amendment that by inadvertence and typing mistake Rs. 24,000 per month was written instead of Rs. 3,200 per month and thus, by this amendment, petitioner is seeking to scale down the income to bring it under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act which is not permissible in law. 24,000 per month was written instead of Rs. 3,200 per month and thus, by this amendment, petitioner is seeking to scale down the income to bring it under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act which is not permissible in law. The Tribunal, vide the impugned order rejected the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner. 4. Challenging the aforesaid impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the claim petition pending before the Tribunal was at an initial stage and there was no bar under the law to convert the petition filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act into one under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, the Tribunal has erred at law while passing the impugned order. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and has argued that by way of amendment, petitioner cannot be allowed to scale down his income so as to make room for provisions of section 163-A of the Act and in support of his case he has relied upon the judgments of this court passed in the case of Himachal Road Trans. Corpn., 2007 ACJ 678 (P&H) and Ram Sarup v. Lakhpat Singh, 2010 ACJ 1274 (P&H). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no dispute with the proposition of law as envisaged in Himachal Road Trans. Corpn. (supra). After relying upon the aforesaid judgment and Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004 ACJ 934 (SC) and Gurmeet Singh v. Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, 2008 ACJ 2303 (P&H), this court held in the case of Ram Sarup (supra) that 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 thereby defeating the very object of section 163-A of the Act. 6. From the facts of the present case, it is clearly established that the petitioner had sought the amendment to reduce the income of the deceased from Rs. 24,000 to Rs. 3,200 per month by stating that it was an inadvertent and a typographical error, which was allowed vide order dated 13.8.2007. 6. From the facts of the present case, it is clearly established that the petitioner had sought the amendment to reduce the income of the deceased from Rs. 24,000 to Rs. 3,200 per month by stating that it was an inadvertent and a typographical error, which was allowed vide order dated 13.8.2007. However, petitioner filed the present application only after three days, i.e., 17.8.2007 seeking permission of the Tribunal for converting the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act into one under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, it is clearly established that the petitioner has in fact adopted a very clever method to bye-pass the judgments of this court in the case of Himachal Road Trans. Corpn., 2007 ACJ 678 (P&H) and Ram Samp, 2010 ACJ 1274 (P&H), firstly by seeking amendment in the income from Rs. 24,000 per month to Rs. 3,200 per month and immediately thereafter seeking permission to convert his petition from one under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act into one under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, the petitioners cannot be allowed to circumvent the rule of law. 7. It may also be noticed that there is no bar of income if the petitioner continues with his claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and no prejudice is going to be caused to him. Thus, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed.