Ravinder and Another vs Subhash Chand and Others

M.M. Kumar, J.—This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 20.8.2004 (P-3), passed by the

learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rewari, whereby the claim of the claimant-respondents has been permitted to be converted to Rs.

40,000/- u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, ''the Act'') by accepting their prayer for amendment of the claim petition.

Brief facts of the case are that on 13.6.2000, an accident had taken place in the area of Village Chandanwas. Tej Singh, who was travelling in

Jeep No. RH-25F/6955 collided with Truck No.HR-46A/6856. Tej Singh, the occupant of jeep suffered head and other injuries and eventually

he died on the spot. Claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who are claiming to be his legal heirs, filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the Act in the year

2000. At the stage when the parties have already produced evidence in support of their respective stand and the case was posted for

rebuttal/arguments, claimant-respondents filed an application to convert the claim petition filed u/s 166 to that of Section 163-A of the Act. A copy

of the application dated 3.4.2004 is Annexure P-l. The amendment application was contested. Eventually, the Tribunal allowed the application.

The operative part of the order allowing the application reads as under:-

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on a full bench judgment of Hon''ble Karnataka High Court rendered in Deep Singh and Others

Vs. Navratan and Others, , wherein it has been held that a claimant during the pendency of proceedings at the original or appellate stage can

amend the claim petition made u/s 166 to a petition u/s 163-A of the M.V. Act. Similarly, a petition can be changed from Section 163-A to

Section 166 M.V. Act, as per decision of Hon''ble Andhra High Court in United India Insurance Company Limited, Tirupati Branch, Tirupati Vs.

Mokkala Chandramma and Others, .

No authority, taking contrary view has been cited by the learned Counsel for the respondent.

In view of the legal position explained above in the authorities relied on by learned Counsel for the petitioners, as referred above, I allow the

application. It is directed that as per the request of petitioners, present petition shall be treated only u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. Come

upon 2.9.2004 for rebuttal evidence, if any and final arguments.

Mr. Mohnish Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners, who are owner and the driver of the truck has argued that after taking a chance

before the Tribunal by filing a claim petition u/s 166 of the Act and realising that their claim may not succeed by proving negligence on part of the

offending vehicle, an effort has been made to convert the proceedings from Section 166 to Section 163-A of the Act. According to the learned

Counsel, such a course would not be permissible in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others

Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda,

Mr. G.S. Gandhi, learned Counsel for the claimant-respondents has argued that in the judgment of the Supreme Court there is no bar created

for converting the proceedings from the one u/s 166 to Section 163-A of the Act. According to the learned Counsel the question before the Court

was entirely different. Mr. Gandhi has placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Deep Singh

and Others Vs. Navratan and Others, and Anr. judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of United India Insurance Company

Limited, Tirupati Branch, Tirupati Vs. Mokkala Chandramma and Others, , which have been cited by the learned Tribunal. He has also placed

reliance on a judgment of this Court rendered in Civil Revision No. 5980 of 2003, titled as Jora Singh and Anr. v. Hardev Singh and Ors., decided

on 14.2.2005.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the course adopted by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal

infirmity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The provisions of the Act are in the

nature of a social security, which provide for a distinct scheme. Those who has annual income of up to Rs. 40,000/- can take advantage of the

aforementioned scheme. The Full Bench of Karnataka High Court fully supports the view taken by the Tribunal. Similar is the position with regard

to the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Jora Singh (supra). Even otherwise, there is no manifest injustice caused to the petitioners,

which require interference of this Court.

Therefore, there is no merit in this petition.

Dismissed.