Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 205 (PNJ)

Ravinder v. Subhash Chand

2006-01-25

M.M.KUMAR

body2006
Judgment M. M. Kumar, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 20.8.2004 (P3), passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Rewari, whereby the claim of the claimants-respondents has been permitted to be converted to Rs.40,000 (sic) under sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, the Act) by accepting their prayer for amendment of the claim petition. 2. 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 25-F 6955 collided with truck No. HR 46-A 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 application under sec. 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, claimants-respondents filed an application to convert the claim application filed under sec. 166 to that under sec. 163-A of the Act. A copy of the application dated 3.4.2004 is annexure p1. The amendment application was contested. Eventually, Tribunal allowed the application. The operative part of the order allowing the application reads as under: " (3) Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a Full Bench judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court rendered in Guruanna Vadi V/s. General Manager, karnataka State Road Trans. Corpn. , 2001 ACJ 1528 (Karnataka), 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 under sec. 166 to a petition under sec. 163-A of the Motor vehicles Act. Similarly, a petition can be changed from sec. 163-A to section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, as per decision of Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Mokkala Chandramma, 2003 ACJ 191 (AP ). No authority, taking contrary view, has been cited by the learned counsel for the respondent. (4) 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. Ltd. V/s. Mokkala Chandramma, 2003 ACJ 191 (AP ). No authority, taking contrary view, has been cited by the learned counsel for the respondent. (4) 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 the petitioners, the present petition shall be treated only under sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. To come up on 2.9.2004 for rebuttal evidence, if any and final arguments. " 3. 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 under sec. 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 sec. 166 to sec. 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 deepal Girishbhai Soni V/s. United India insurance Co. Ltd. , 2004 ACJ 934 (SC ). 4. Mr. G. S. Gandhi, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents has argued that in the judgment of the Supreme Court there is no bar created for converting the proceedings from the one under sec. 166 to that under sec. 163-A of the Act. According to learned counsel, the question before the court was entirely different. Mr. Gandhi has placed reliance on the Full bench judgment of Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Guruanna Vadi V/s. General Manager, Karnataka State Road trans. Corpn. , 2001 ACJ 1528 (Karnataka)and another judgment of Andhra Pradesh high Court in the case of United India insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Mokkala Chandramma, 2003 ACJ 191 (AP), which have been cited by the learned Tribunal. He has also placed reliance on a judgment of this court rendered in Jora Singh V/s. Hardev singh, Civil Revision No.5980 of 2003; decided on 14.2.2005 (Pandh ). 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the course adopted by the Claims Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference of this court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the course adopted by the Claims 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 have 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, Civil Revision no.5980 of 2003; decided on 14.2.2005 (Pandh ). Even otherwise, there is no injustice caused to the petitioners, which require interference of this court. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.