Mangta Ram and Another vs Mohit

Rajan Gupta, J.—Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 3.5.2012, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala whereby application for amendment of claim petition has been rejected by the court below. Learned counsel has argued that the order is erroneous in nature. The petitioners merely want to amend the claim from section 166 to 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. He has relied upon a judgment reported as Guruanna Vadi and another Vs. The General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and another,

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and given careful thought to the facts of the case.

It appears that an accident took place on 29.5.2010 in which a five years old child died. Claim petition was preferred by his father u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. During the pendency of proceedings, instant application was moved for amending the claim u/s 163A of the Act. Prayer has been rejected by the court below. I feel that order is unsustainable. Petitioner would be entitled to seek necessary amendment. The amendment sought would not change the nature of the claim petition. A full bench of Karnataka High Court in Guruanna Vadi''s case (supra) has observed as follows:-

Question No. 6: The only bar provided for exercising an option in the matter of filing a claim petition for compensation is to be found in S. 163B which states, ''where a person is entitled to claim compensation u/s 140 and Section 163A, he shall file the claim under either of the said sections and not under both''. There is no prohibition in any other provision of the Act from switching over the claim made under Sections 166 to 163A provided the accident took place on 14.10.1994 or thereafter because S. 163A came on the statute book only with effect from 14.10.1994, subject of course to the claimants satisfying other requirements such as the outer income limit mentioned in the Second Schedule, Section 163 is a beneficial legislation and provides for payment of compensation based on structured formula without requiring pleading or establishing that the death or permanent disability in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or negligence or default of the owner of vehicle or vehicles concerned or any other person. Such a beneficial legislation has to be given a liberal interpretation. Therefore, we answer this question in the affirmative by holding that a claimant can move the Court for amendment of his claim petition filed u/s 166 to that of a petition u/s 163A at any stage of the proceedings and it would be for the concerned Court to pass an order on the application in accordance with law.

Under the circumstances, impugned order is hereby set-aside. The amendment be allowed to be carried. Revision petition is allowed.