Dismissed

Pala Ram v. Satbir & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 May 2018FAO/5855/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed an appeal against a Tribunal order that denied a Section 163-A claim because the deceased earned over Rs. 40,000. The Court held that while the Rs. 40,000 limit is an eligibility threshold, it cannot cap the compensation calculation under standard provisions.

What did the court decide?

The claim petition was dismissed as the deceased did not qualify under Section 163-A; compensation should have been calculated under Chapter XII.

Pala Ram Vs Satbir & Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

FAO No.5855 of 2016 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

FAO No.5855 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.05.2018

Pala Ram

.... Appellant

Versus

Satbir and others

..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

¶11

Present : Mr.D.S.Nain, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

********

¶13

Avneesh Jhingan, J.

¶14

The present appeal has been filed against award dated 08.07.2015 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').

¶15

The grievance is that the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') was dismissed on the ground that the annual earning of the deceased was more than Rs.40,000/-per annum.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased was working as a cleaner in a truck. The Tribunal ought to have put a cap at Rs.40,000/- thereafter calculating the compensation. The said contention cannot be accepted.

¶17

Supreme Court in case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others

¶18

Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, 2004 (5) SCC 385 , has held that claim under Section 163-A of the Act can only be made where the deceased is having earning less than Rs.40,000/- per annum. This figure of

¶19

Anju 2018.05.28 16:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document phhc

¶20

FAO No.5855 of 2016 (O&M)

¶21

-2-

¶22

Rs.40,000/- cannot be used as a cap. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted as below:-

¶23

“We, therefore, are of the opinion that Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hansrajbhai V.Kodla and

¶24

others, (2001) 5 SCC 175 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 annual shall be treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceeding under Section 163A 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.”

¶25

The appeal is dismissed.

¶26

(AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE

¶27

24.05.2018 anju

¶28

1.Whether the order is speaking/reasoned: Yes/No 2.Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No

Pala Ram v. Satbir & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pala Ram v. Satbir & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Devi and Ors. Vs Dheeraj Raheja and Ors.

Pepsu Road Transport Corp. and Anr. Vs Harbans Singh and Ors.

Amardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Soniya Kumari & Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Nar

Gazebo Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Royal Industries Ltd.