JUDGMENT : 1. The present appellant was respondent No. 2 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal below (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal below’ for short). The present respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were the claimants in the Tribunal below. Those claimants had instituted a claim petition in the Tribunal below under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act for short) claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the respondents therein. 2. The summary of the case of the claimants in the Tribunal was that on 25.04.2001 at 12.30 in the afternoon, the deceased Chandrakant S. Belvi while going on his motorcycle bearing reg.No. KA-23/L-4011 from Yadur to Manjari cross, a Goods Tempo (Tata-608) bearing reg. No. MH-09/A-5987 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner coming from Manjari to Ganeshwadi road, at Manjari cross dashed to the motorcycle on which the deceased was going. Due to the said accident, the deceased Chandrakant sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to it on the next day while he was in a hospital. Further stating that, at the time of accident deceased was doing business and agricultural work and was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. the claimants holding the owner and insurer of the alleged offending vehicle as liable to pay them compensation had claimed compensation of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- from them. 3. However, during the pendency of the petition in the Tribunal below through an application seeking permission to amend the claim petition, the claimants amended the income of the deceased at Rs. 40,000/- p.a. The Tribunal below after recording the evidence and hearing both side by its judgment and award dated 30.09.2008 allowed the claim petition in part holding that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of a sum of Rs. 4,70,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. thereupon from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company was given two months time to deposit the amount. It is the said judgment and award, the said Insurance Company has challenged in this appeal. 4. 4,70,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. thereupon from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Respondent No. 2-Insurance Company was given two months time to deposit the amount. It is the said judgment and award, the said Insurance Company has challenged in this appeal. 4. The only contention of the appellant in its memorandum of appeal as well as the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, in the evidence of the claimants, they have clearly stated that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. apart from agricultural income of Rs. 2,00,000/- per year. If the averments are accepted by the Courts, then the petition under Section 163-A of M.V. Act is not maintainable. 5. In his support, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon two reported judgments. The first judgment is, Bangalore Metro Transport Corporation vs. Lakshmamma and Others, ILR 2007 Kar 4488. In the said case, a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with Section 163-A of the M.V. Act was pleased to observe that, under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, the claim petition is applicable to the person whose income is less than Rs. 40,000/- p.a. The Tribunal has no power to restrict the income of the claimant or deceased as the case may be to Rs. 40,000/- to bring the petition within the purview of Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. It was further observed in the same case that, when a person is having income of more than Rs. 40,000/- p.a. he cannot maintain a petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon a Full Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Baroda, ILR 2005 Kar 241, wherein the order of a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 19.04.2002 after doubting the correctness of 2-Judge Bench decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hansrajbhai with Kodala and Others had referred the matter to a 3-Judge Bench whereby and whereunder the proceedings under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act has been held to be a final proceeding as a result whereof the claimants had been debarred from proceeding with their further claims made on the basis of fault liability in terms of Section 165 thereof. Incidentally, this case was also cited by the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5/claimants. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after a detailed discussion including regarding legislative history of the M.V. Act was pleased to observe that, in Kodala, the contention of the appellant that right to get compensation is in addition to no-fault liability was rightly rejected and given its conclusion that in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hansrajbhai with Kodala and Others, 2001 (5) SCC 175 has correctly been decided. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, they did 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/- p.a. shall be treated as a cap. It further observed in its opinion that, proceeding under Section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is up to Rs. 40,000/- p.a. can take the benefit thereof. All other claims were required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act. In the third decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is, in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rupinder Kaur, ACJ 2015-0-1628, the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana after referring to both Kodala (supra) and Deepal (supra) judgments was pleased to observe that, it was abundantly clear that Section 163-A can be resorted to by only that person, whose annual income is not above Rs. 40,000/-. The gist of all the above referred cases is that, to avail the benefit under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, the annual income of the victim or deceased as the case may be should not exceed a sum of Rs. 40,000/- p.a. 6. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5/claimants relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sharabai and Another vs. P. Sahebkhan and Others, 2006 ACJ 229 , wherein regarding the question of maintainability of a claim application under Section 163-A r/w II Schedule of M.V. Act, this Court regarding the contention that the claimants in their claim application had alleged that the deceased was an agriculturist earning a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- p.a. and as such, the application was not maintainable under Section 163-A of M.V. Act was pleased to hold that the Tribunal appreciated oral and documentary evidence and holding that the deceased was earning Rs. 28,800/- p.a. it shown that the claim petition was maintainable under Section 163-A of M.V. Act. While holding that the claim petition under Section 163-A of M.V. Act was maintainable, this Court observed that the pleading of a party can never be placed on the pedestal of law; claimants asserted a fact which they could not prove, that circumstance itself without anything further has no legal efficacy to determine jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It was also observed that jurisdiction of the Tribunal is determined by law and not by pleading of a party. With this, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants in his argument submitted that, even though PW-1 in his evidence has stated that the income of the deceased was Rs. 5,000/- p.m. in addition to an agricultural income of Rs. 2,00,000/- p.a. but the same was not proved and also against the pleading. As such, the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of M.V. Act was entertained by the Tribunal below. 7. In the case on hand, admittedly, the claimants at the inception of the claim petition had shown the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- p.m. However, at the stage of final argument on the claim petition, by filing an interlocutory application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, they got permission to amend the income of the deceased at Rs. 40,000/- p.a. and accordingly, amended their pleadings. As such, the pleading of the claimants regarding income of the deceased remains that the deceased was having a income of Rs. 40,000/- p.a. However, by the time the claimants amended their pleading, they had already been concluded the pleadings and evidence on their part. After the amendment of the pleading neither of the parties to the claim petition led any further evidence. As such, what the evidence that is already been led by that time only remained on record. In the said evidence, PW-1 Sri. After the amendment of the pleading neither of the parties to the claim petition led any further evidence. As such, what the evidence that is already been led by that time only remained on record. In the said evidence, PW-1 Sri. Sadashiv Babu Belavi, who is said to be the father of the deceased Chandrakant and claimant No. 5 in the Tribunal below in his examination-in-chief has stated that the deceased was running a fertilizer shop in a village and from out of the business was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000/- p.m. Apart from that by personally cultivating the agricultural land by raising different crops like, sugarcane, tobacco, soybean etc., he was raising worth an income of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Taking these aspects, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted in his argument that the income of the deceased being more than Rs. 40,000/- p.a. the claim petition was not maintainable under Section 163-A of M.V. Act. 8. What is to be noticed is that, it is only to substantiate and to prove the averments made in the claim petition, the witnesses for the claimants will lead evidence. The pleading is the base for the averments and the evidence is the process of proving the pleading. Since the original pleading and alleged income of the deceased which was at Rs. 5,000/- was subsequently amended before the final argument of the matter in the Tribunal below and was made at Rs. 40,000/- p.a. the pleading of the claimants remains to be Rs. 40,000/- p.a. as the income of the deceased. As such, even though PW-1 in his evidence has stated that the income of the deceased was more than what is contended in the pleadings, but there is no basis to accept the same. It is also because the claimants through PW-1 except stating that the income of the deceased was Rs. 5,000/- p.m. in addition to that there was an agricultural income of Rs. 2,00,000/- p.a. have not produced documents to substantiate the same. Even otherwise, the respondents have not accepted the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- p.m. and additional sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- p.a. through agriculture. 5,000/- p.m. in addition to that there was an agricultural income of Rs. 2,00,000/- p.a. have not produced documents to substantiate the same. Even otherwise, the respondents have not accepted the income of the deceased at Rs. 5,000/- p.m. and additional sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- p.a. through agriculture. On the contrary, apart from denying the alleged income of the deceased, in its written statement respondent No.2-Insurance Company in the cross-examination of PW-1 as well in the cross- examination of PW-2 specifically taken a contention and suggested to the witness that deceased had no such income. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 that the deceased had monthly income of Rs. 5,000/- from his fertilizer business and a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from agricultural activities remains to be a disputed fact. To arrive at said conclusion, few portion of the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 can also be relied upon. 9. In the cross-examination of PW-1 from respondents side at page 10 following statement has come: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 10. It has further come in the same cross-examination as: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 11. It has also come in the same cross-examination at para 8 as follows: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 12. Similarly, in the cross-examination of PW-2 also a suggestion was made from the respondents side. The response of the witness was as follows: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 13. It is for this reason, the Tribunal below has rightly held that the claimants could not even prove that the deceased had income as pleaded in the petition. Thus, it took the income of the deceased at Rs. 110/- per day, which comes to Rs. 3,300/- p.m. 14. From the above, it is clear that in the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court of Punjab and Haryana referred to by both the sides, as above, the fact was different. In some of those cases, the victim/deceased being a salaried person with a higher income than Rs. 40,000/- p.a. the claim petition was filed restricting the income at Rs. 40,000/-. In some of other cases, there was no pleading itself showing the income of the victim as less than Rs. 40,000/- p.a. Whereas, in the case on hand, as observed in the pleading itself, after its amendment, stated that the income of the deceased was only Rs. 40,000/- p.a. the claim petition was filed restricting the income at Rs. 40,000/-. In some of other cases, there was no pleading itself showing the income of the victim as less than Rs. 40,000/- p.a. Whereas, in the case on hand, as observed in the pleading itself, after its amendment, stated that the income of the deceased was only Rs. 40,000/- p.a. As such, the evidence that is led would only to prove the pleading. In the instant case, since the evidence also after its appreciation shows the income of the deceased only at Rs. 110/- per day, the only contention of the appellant that the claim petition was not maintainable under Section 163-A of M.V. Act is not accepted. 15. Barring this, the appellant neither has taken any other grounds nor addressed arguments on any other grounds, which requires to be considered. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. The amount in deposit, if any by the appellant to be transmitted to the concerned MACT without delay.