Ashok vs Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Bijapur

Mrs. S. Sujatha. J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bijapur in MVC No. 821/2006.

The facts in brief are:

- that the appellant/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the "Act" for short) claiming compensation, contending that on 16-12-2005 while the appellant was travelling on his motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-28/L-1342 met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-28/F-978, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries. The Tribunal alter appreciating the material evidence on record dismissed the petition as no maintainable under Section 163-A of the Act. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that two vehicles were involved in the accident. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus and as such, in view of the principles of no fault liability, the appellant/claimant was entitled to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. The Tribunal ignoring this material aspect dismissed the petition. It is further contended that though the appellant was working as a Teacher in Education Department, was drawing salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month thus, the income of the appellant/claimant was less than Rs. 40,000/- per annum. The Tribunal disbelieving the annual income of the appellant, rejected the claim petition on the ground that the annual income of the appellant is more than Rs. 40,000/- much contrary to the evidence on record.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation defending the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal would contend that the appellant being a teacher in Education Department, has shown his monthly salary at Rs. 8,000/- at the initial stage while filing the claim petition and thereafter, it was amended to Rs. 3,000/- per month, no substantial proof of income was produced by the appellant to establish that he was drawing Rs. 3,000/- as monthly income. Even otherwise, the charge-sheet at Ex. P6 reveals that the appellant/claimant himself is the accused who caused the accident due to the rash and negligent driving. In such situation, the Tribunal is right in rejecting the claim petition.

Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the material on record, it is discerned that the appellant/claimant was working as a Teacher in the Education Department as a Government servant and initially, in the claim petition his salary was declared as Rs. 8,000/- per month however, later on it was amended to Rs. 3,000/- per month, not supported by any substantial evidence to establish the exact monthly income. The appellant being a Government Servant, it was incumbent upon him to produce the salary certificate to establish his monthly income. In the absence of any material evidence produced by the appellant to prove that his annual income is less than Rs. 40,000/-, while opting for compensation under Section 163-A of the Act, the Tribunal has rightly held that the annual income of a Government servant working as a Teacher is more than Rs. 40,000/-. In the situation, the tribunal placing reliance on the Second Schedule of Section 163-A of the Act, which categorically restricts the claim by a victim, whose annual income is less than Rs. 40,000/- rejected the claim petition which cannot be found fault with.

Even on the other ground of two vehicles involved in the accident, no doubt the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act is maintainable where the two vehicles are involved, on no fault liability principle, in view of the annual income of the appellant/claimant being more than Rs. 40,000/- as rightly held by the Tribunal, no petition under Section 163-A of the Act is maintainable and deserves to be rejected. I do not see any infirmity or irregularity in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant under Section 163-A of the Act.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits, reserving liberty to the appellant/claimant to move the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, if he is advised to do so.