AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned counsel for admission.
Perused the memorandum of appeal, impugned judgment and award and also the certified copy of the depositions recorded by the Tribunal below in the matter, as furnished by the learned counsel for appellant.
It is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173(1) of the M.V.Act, 1988, seeking setting aside of the Judgment and award dated 24.07.2014, passed by the Fast Track Court-I and MACT, Belagavi in MVC No.1282/2013 and to grant the compensation as prayed in the claim petition. The present appellant was the claimant in the Tribunal below.
The summary of the case of the claimant in the Tribunal below was that on 19.08.2012, while he was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-47/H-2442 as a pillion rider from Belagavi to Sawantwadi, near Shirgaon cross on Belgaum ? Savantwadi road at about 11.45 hrs., a MSRTC Bus bearing MH-20/D-9041 came from opposite direction, due to which, the rider of the motor cycle came in contact with the said bus. The unavoidable circumstances made the accident to happen, due to which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries at different parts of his body and was shifted to KLE Hospital, Belgaum.
It is the further claimant''s case that for his medical treatment, he has spent a sum of Rs.80,000/-. It is also his case that as on the date of accident, he was earning a sum of Rs.3,300/- per month and that due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he is not in a position to continue his coolie work. With this he has claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the owner cum insurer of the bus arraying it as the respondent in the Tribunal below.
The respondent after its appearance in the Tribunal below has filed its statement of objections, denying all the allegations made by the claimant in his claim petition. After framing the issues and recording the evidence, lead before it, the Tribunal by its impugned Judgment and award dated 24.07.2014, came to a conclusion that since the claimant has admitted that his income was Rs.200/- per month which exceeds the sealing limit of Rs.40,000/- per annum, prescribed under Section 163 (A) r/w. schedule 2 of the motor vehicle Act 1988, the claim petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, it dismissed the claim petition. It is against the said Judgment and award, the claimant has preferred this appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant in his argument submitted that the claimant in his claim petition has specifically and clearly stated that his income per month was at Rs.3,300/- only. As such, it comes below Rs.40,000/- per annum. After going through the evidence of PW-1 the learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that even though PW-1 has admitted that his income was at Rs.200/- per day, but it cannot be considered that he was getting coolie work every day.
A perusal of the materials placed before this Court and more particularly the certified copy of the deposition of the parties including the claimant who himself examined as PW-1 in the Tribunal below go to show that the claimant in his examination in chief, as well as in his memorandum of appeal has stated that his income was Rs.3,300/- per month. However, in his crossexamination done by the respondent company in the Tribunal below he has stated as below ; "VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED"
The above statement of admission made by none else than the claimant himself makes it very clear that he earns Rs.200/- per day by working as a coolie and that every day he gets the work as coolie. So this admission on the part of PW-1 himself prevents accepting the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant does not get coolie every day. As such, his income cannot be computed at Rs.200 X 30 days = Rs.6000/-. It is considering this aspect that the claimant himself has categorically admitted that his income every day is at Rs.200/-, the Tribunal below has relied upon some of the reported judgments before arriving at a conclusion that the petition is not maintainable. The Tribunal below has considered the Judgement in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. N.Kunnappu & others, reported in 2007 ACJ 30, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pachan Manek Gadhvi and others reported in 2013 ACJ 2329 and also the case Deepal Girishbhai Soni Vs. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., reported in 2004 ACJ 934 (SC). In all these case, it has been observed that when the income of the claimant is more than Rs.40,000/- per annum, the petition under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is not maintainable. As such, the Tribunal below has rightly held that the petition under Section 163(A) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is not maintainable and resultantly dismissed the claim petition. Since prima facie this said finding of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with and no convincing ground could be made out in the memorandum of appeal entailing its admission for further hearing, I am of the view that the matter does not deserves to be admitted for hearing. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER. The appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.