Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.73 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Deepal Girishbhai Soni And Ors vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda on 18 March, 2004
10 fast14852.16.odt
But, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni Vs. United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. (supra), clearly lays down that a claim petition under
Section 163-A of the said Act provided a distinct claim only
for those whose annual income was up to Rs.40,000/-. A
perusal of above quoted Section 163-A of the Act would show
under subsection (3) thereof, Central Government may
amend Schedule II from time to time.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Hansrajbhai V. Kodala & Ors on 4 April, 2001
Later a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni Vs.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) held that while the
case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Hansarajbhai
V. Kodala & Ors. (supra) was correctly decided, but, it was
clarified that Section 163-A of the said Act was a social
security provision providing that only those claimants whose
annual income was up to Rs.40,000/- could take benefit
thereof and all other claims were required to be determined
under Chapter XII of the said Act. Thus, it was made clear
that where the annual income of the deceased or permanently
disabled was more than Rs.40,000/-, the claim petition would
::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2019 00:56:59 :::
8 fast14852.16.odt
have to be filed under Section 166 of the aforesaid Act, which
falls in Chapter XII thereof.
Puttamma W/O Lt Ramadas vs K L Narayana Reddy S/O Lt Lakshmaiah ... on 10 March, 2010
In this context, the learned counsel for the
appellant insurance company is justified in pointing out that
the case of Puttamma and others Vs. K.L. Narayan Reddy and
another (supra) concerned a claim moved on behalf of
claimants under Section 166 of the said Act i.e. under Chapter
XII thereof. The judgments on which the Tribunal also relied
were cases where the claimants had filed applications under
Section 166 of the said Act. It was while deciding the claims
under the said provision that in various judgments it was held
that the multiplier as also other factors indicated in Schedule
II had become redundant due to manifold increase in prices.
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi on 31 October, 2017
9. On the other hand, Mr. V.D. Darne, learned
counsel appearing for the contesting respondents No.1 to 3
submitted that there was no substance in the contention
raised on behalf of the appellant insurance company. It was
submitted that in various judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had taken note of the fact that with the passage of time
Schedule II of the aforesaid Act had become redundant, with
the increase in inflation and the fact that the prices of
essential commodities had increased manifold. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in various judgments had, therefore, modified
the Schedule and in that view of the matter, the insistence
upon outer limit of annual income of Rs.40,000/- was
unsustainable. It was submitted that once it was found that
the said limit as specified in the Schedule was not mandatory,
the basis of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant
was taken away. On this basis, it was submitted that the
appeal deserved to be dismissed and the compensation
granted by the Tribunal was required to be confirmed.
Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Puttamma and others Vs. K.L. Narayan
Reddy and another AIR 2014 SC 706 and National Insurance
Company Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2017(16) SCC 680.
Dr. Rakesh Kumar Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh 21 Wpcr/452/2018 ... on 8 August, 2018
8. Mr.D.N.Kukday, the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant insurance company contended that the moment
the respondents No.1 to 3 came up with a case before the
Tribunal in the claim petition that salary of the deceased was
Rs.5615/- per month, which was clearly above the upper limit
of the annual income of Rs.40,000/- specified in Schedule II
of the aforesaid Act, the claim petition under Section 163-A of
the Act was not maintainable. It was submitted that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had noted distinction between the
claim petitions filed under Section 163-A and Section 166 of
the aforesaid Act. On this basis, it was submitted that when
the stated income of the deceased was well beyond the
annual income of Rs.40,000/-, the Tribunal ought to have
dismissed the claim petition as not maintainable and that the
respondents No.1 to 3 had opportunity to file an appropriate
claim petition under Section 166 of the said Act. It was
emphasized that Section 163-A of the aforesaid Act was
incorporated by way of amendment to provide relief to
claimants in the cases where the deceased or permanently
disabled due to an accident arising out of use of motor
vehicle, were earning annual income of Rs.40,000/- or less.
On this basis alone, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and order
deserved to be quashed and set aside. Reliance was placed by
the learned counsel appearing for the appellant on the
Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Hansarajbhai V.
Kodala & Ors., I (2001) ACC 618 (SC), Deepal Girishbhai
::: Uploaded on - 15/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 16/11/2019 00:56:59 :::
5 fast14852.16.odt
Soni Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. I (2004) ACC 728
(SC) and judgment of Kerela High Court in the case of United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Akbar Shihab III (2012) ACC 585.
The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
1