Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1279 (MP)

RAMKALI BAI v. SUDHIR YADAV

2014-10-07

R.S.JHA

body2014
ORDER : Ravi Shankar Jha, J. Shri Kapil Patwardhan, learned counsel for the appellants. Shri R.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Heard on the question of admission. 2. The appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the award dated 4-12-2013 whereby the claim of the appellants for grant of compensation under the provisions of section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act relating to no fault liability, has been rejected on the ground that admittedly the deceased's income was Rs.500/- per day and Rs.15,000/- per month or Rs.1,80,000/- per year. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that in such cases, even if, it was an admitted fact that the income of the deceased was Rs. 1,80,000/- per year, the Tribunal should have restricted the income of the deceased to Rs. 40,000/- per annum and should have allowed the application under section 163-A of the Act as the said provision is a social welfare legislation. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the tribunal has dismissed the claim of the appellants relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, (2004) 5 SCC 385 , therefore there is no error in the impugned award, warranting interference by this Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the Court below, it is observed that the Supreme Court has recorded the following conclusion in para 67 of its order :-- "(67) We, therefore, are of the opinion that Kodala (supra) has correctly been decided. However, we do not agree with the findings in Kodala (supra) that if a person invokes provisions of section 163-A, the annual income of Rs.40,000/- per annum shall be treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceeding under section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is upto Rs.40,000/- can take the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act." 6. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the appellants in view of the admitted fact that the deceased was earning Rs. 500/- per day or Rs. All other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act." 6. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the appellants in view of the admitted fact that the deceased was earning Rs. 500/- per day or Rs. 1,80,000/- per annum and in view of the said admitted fact the application under section 163-A of the Act has rightly been rejected. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned award. The appeal being meritless is accordingly dismissed.