AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.L. Manjunath, J.—The claimants have preferred this appeal being not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the MACT, Bangalore in MVC No. 21/2000 passed on 16.02.2005.
The claim petition was lodged on account of death of one Mohammed Idris Ahmed, who died in a road traffic accident occurred on 8.9.1999 at about 2.30 am. The petition was filed u/s 166 of M.V. Act stating that the deceased was working as an Engineer in a Granite Company, drawing a salary of Rs. 6,500/- per month and claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Later an appllecation was filed for amendment of the claim petition stating that the deceased was getting an income of Rs. 18,500/- per month and total amount of compensation claimed was also got amended from Rs. 5,00,000/- to Rs. 25,00,000/- But, later the petition filed u/s 166 of MV Act was converted into one u/s 163A of MV Act. Before the Tribunal, the claimants have let in their evidence. They have produced Ex.P.8, which discloses that the deocased was getting a salary of Rs. 5,800/- and they have also produced Ex.P.9 Income Tax Returns, which discloses his income at Rs. 1,54,000/- in the year 1997-98 and also for the subsequent years, he filed Form No. 16, which discloses that the income of the deoeased at Rs. 1,74,000/-. For the year 1998-99, his declared salary in form No. 16 was Rs. 2,22,000/-. The Tribunal without considering these documents, considering the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/- per month, awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,87,000/-, contary to the income of the deceased deolared in his income tax returns. This order is called in question in this appeal.
3, We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has noticed that the claim petitions are being filed and prosecuted by the learned counsel for the parties in a casual manner without bearing in mind the consequence that flow from the same and the members of the tribunal are also disposing of the claim petitions in a casual manner. We were constrained to observe as above having regard to the facts of this case. When a person was getting an income of more than Rs. 2,00,000/- as salary as per the income tax returns, the case of the claimants cannot be considered u/s 163(A) of the MV Act Even if the amendment is sought, the Tribunal ought not to have allowed the amendment application. Even if the amendment application was allowed, the Tribunal was required to look into the income tax returns and other documentary evidence produced by the claimants and based on the same, by rejecting the application filed u/s 163 of MV Act, it was required to consider the case of the claimants u/s 166 of MV Act. This Court also declined the request made by the learned counsel for the claimants to treat the petition filed as one u/s 166 of MV Act and to grant compensation suitably. La our view, it is tor the member of the Tribunal to find out the claim lodged by the claimants and there to decide whether it falls within the ambit of Section 166 of M.VAct or not?
Admittedly, the deceased was getting an income of more than Rs. 2,00,000/- per annum as on the date of the accident. If it is so, it was for the Tribunal to consider his declared income as per the income tax returns and proceed with the matter. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in considering the application u/s 163 of M.V. Act, when the income of the deceased was more than Rs. 2,00,000/-per annum.
Accordingly, Appeal is allowed. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law.