Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order dated 12 March 2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mapusa, dismissing Claim Petition No. 52 of 2000 filed by the legal heirs of Kashinath Betu Gawas under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The deceased, Sushant K. Gawas, died in an accident while travelling in a truck insured with the respondent insurer; he was not driving but was the owner of the vehicle. The tribunal held that the claim petition was not maintainable as the deceased was the owner. In appeal before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, the counsel for the appellants conceded that the petition under Section 163-A was not maintainable because the deceased's income was mentioned as Rs. 10,000 per month, exceeding the statutory annual limit of Rs. 40,000 prescribed in the Second Schedule to the Act. The counsel sought permission to convert the petition into one under Section 166, placing reliance on a ruling of the Kerala High Court in Mini Philip v. P.J. Mathew. The respondent insurer opposed conversion, arguing that there is no limitation for filing under Section 166. The court considered the concession and the clear language of Section 163-A read with the Second Schedule, and held that the petition was not maintainable. It declined to allow conversion, observing that a claim under Section 166 requires specific pleading of rashness and negligence, unlike a claim under Section 163-A. Moreover, since there is no limitation for filing an application under Section 166, the appellants were not left remediless. The court quashed the impugned order but confirmed that the claim petition under Section 163-A was not maintainable. The appellants were granted liberty to file appropriate proceedings as available in law.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles - Claim under Section 163-A - Income Ceiling - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 163-A, Second Schedule - The claim petition under Section 163-A was admitted to be not maintainable because the deceased's monthly income was stated as Rs. 10,000/- (annual income Rs. 1,20,000/-), exceeding the maximum permissible limit of Rs. 40,000/- prescribed in the Second Schedule. Held that the claim petition filed under Section 163-A is not maintainable on this ground. (Paras 3, 4, 7) B) Motor Vehicles - Conversion of Claim from Section 163-A to Section 166 - Pleading of Rashness and Negligence - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 163-A and 166 - The appellant sought conversion of the claim petition from Section 163-A to Section 166, relying on a Kerala High Court judgment. The court refused conversion, noting that a claim under Section 166 requires specific pleading of rashness and negligence, which is absent in a Section 163-A petition, and that there is no limitation for filing a fresh petition under Section 166. Held that conversion cannot be permitted and granted liberty to file appropriate proceedings under law. (Paras 4, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is maintainable when the deceased's income exceeds Rs. 40,000 per annum; and whether the claimants can be permitted to convert such a petition into one under Section 166 of the Act.
Final Decision
The appeal was disposed of by holding that the claim petition under Section 163-A was not maintainable. The impugned order of the Tribunal was quashed and set aside, and the claimants were granted liberty to file appropriate proceedings as may be available in law.
Law Points
- Section 163-A claim maintainable only if victim's annual income is up to Rs. 40
- 000
- Conversion from Section 163-A to Section 166 not automatic and requires specific pleading of rashness and negligence
- No limitation for filing under Section 166
- Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes income ceiling for Section 163-A claims
