Reena & Ors vs Prem Singh Chauhan & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 11636 P&H

FAO-240-2014                                                          -1-

446
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                        FAO-240-2014
                                        Date of Decision: 19.09.2022

REENA & ORS                                               ......... Appellants

                                    Versus


PREM SINGH CHAUHAN & ORS                                  ..... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :   Mr. Sagar Aggarwal, Advocate for
            Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate
            for the appellants.

            Mr. Rajneesh, Advocate
            for respondent No.2.

                   ****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The appellants through instant appeal are seeking setting

aside of award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for

short 'Tribunal'), Bhiwani, whereby learned Tribunal has dismissed the

claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants.

2. The brief facts emerging from record are that on 09.02.2011

Harender (deceased) met with an accident while he was driving his car.

A DDR No.32 was lodged at Police Station Sadar, Charkhi-Dadri and

proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were conducted. The appellants

filed petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking

compensation on account of death of Harender. The appellants claimed

compensation of Rs.1 crore alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

3. Learned Tribunal dismissed the petition of the appellants on

1 of 3

two counts namely (i) income of deceased is claimed more than 40,000/-

per annum, thus, petition is not maintainable under Section 163-A of

the Motor Vehicles Act and (ii) there is no third party and petition has

been filed against insurer of the vehicle which deceased was driving and

he was owner of that vehicle and as per judgments of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Sinitha and others,

2012 (1) RCR (Civil) (SC) 205 and Ningamma and another Versus

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2009 ACJ (SC) 2020, petition is not

maintainable under Section 163-A of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that learned

Tribunal has wrongly dismissed claim petition on the ground that income

of deceased was more than Rs.40,000/- per annum whereas, there are so

many judgments holding the field that even though income is claimed

more than Rs.40,000/- per annum, Tribunal can entertain petition under

Section 163-A of the Act.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer pleaded that

appellant is missing substantial fact that learned Tribunal has dismissed

appeal not only on the ground that there is claim of income of deceased

more than Rs.40,000/- per annum, there is also finding of learned

Tribunal that in view of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sinitha

case's (Supra) and Ningamma case's (supra), petition was not

maintainable under Section 163-A of the Act.

6. On being confronted with judgments of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Sinitha case's (Supra) and Ningamma case's (supra), learned

counsel for the appellants expressed his inability to cite any contrary

judgment or controvert the afore-cited judgments.

2 of 3

7. In view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Sinitha case's (Supra) and Ningamma case's (supra), there is no

ground to interfere and accordingly appeal is dismissed, however, the

appellants are at liberty to file petition under Section 140 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, in accordance with law.

                                               ( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
                                                      JUDGE
19.09.2022
Ali


                   Whether speaking/reasoned    Yes/No
                      Whether Reportable        Yes/No




                                3 of 3