negligence of the deceased. That was the reason why the claimants proceeded to convert the claim petition as the one under section 163A of the Act. Considering the claim under Section 163A, the learned Tribunal limited the annual income of the deceased to Rs.40,000/-. This, according to the learned senior counsel is not justifiable in the light of the decision reported in Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2004 (2) KLT 395 (SC)) . It was observed by the Apex Court in the case referred to above that the proceeding under Section 163A being a social security provision providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is up to Rs.40,000/- can take the benefit thereof. Viewed in that profile, the learned Tribunal has committed a patent error in converting the claim petition to one under Section 163A. If the claim petitioner is to be treated as one under Section 166, the relevance of the negligence of the deceased if any, will also come into play. Hence, we are of the view that the award has to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted back to the trial court for passing a fresh award after reconsidering the entire evidence, treating the claim as one under Section 166.
