[2025:RJ-JP:6805] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3564/2011 1. Shivlal Mahaver S/o Shir Chotelal, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Daulatpura, Police Station Tehla, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Claimant-Appellant Versus 1. Rajendra S/o Shri Heeralal Yadav, R/o Thana Rajaji Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Owner Truck No.RJ-02-G-3126) 2. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office, Jaipur (Insurer Vehicle No. RJ-02-G-3126) ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Ms. Sweta Soni for Mr. Manish Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Singhal with Ms. Firoz Akhtar Ansari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 08/01/2025 1. Instant Civil Misc. Appeal is preferred aggrieved from dismissal of MAC Claim Case No. 79/2005 by MACT (ADJ), Rajgarh District Alwar on 08.04.2011 in petition under Section 163-A of MV Act. 2. Considered submission of learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material placed on record. 3. Admitted fact indicates that claimant-appellant was driver of vehicle owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2. The instant claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of MV Act, to seek compensation from injuries sustained by claimant in an accident for which an FIR No.60/2005 filed at P.S. Manpur, District Dausa. [2025:RJ-JP:6805] (2 of 2) [CMA-3564/2011] 4. As per record submitted by claimant, the police has field a charge-sheet under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. The claimant has claimed his monthly income as ₹6,000/- and as per finding of issue No.4, a claim petition cannot be filed wherein income of injured/deceased exceeds ₹40,000/- per annum under Section 163-A of MV Act. 5. Herein, the claimant has filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of MV Act claiming that he was employed with respondent No.1 on truck No. RJ-02-G-3126 and his monthly income ₹6,000/- per month, means ₹72,000/- per annum. 6. In case of Ramkhiladi Vs. United India Insurance Company 2020 (2) SCC 550, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when deceased was himself driving the vehicle at the time of accident then legal heirs cannot maintain a claim petition under Section 163-A of MV Act. Herein, looking to the disqualification as provided under the law, the claim petition was dismissed. The income claim of claimant is admission against him, and facts narrated by defendant No.1 cannot be considered, to supersede claimant. The claimant has to file claim petition as per condition prescribed under the law and not beyond the same. 7. There is no case for admission, and the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition, hence, the instant appeal has no force and same is liable to be dismissed. 8. In view of aforesaid, the instant civil misc. appeal is hereby dismissed. 9. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /76