JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, which was respondent No.2 before the Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Bagalkote (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) in MVC No.818/2007. 2. In this appeal, the appellant-Insurance Company has taken a contention that the claimants have specifically pleaded that the income of the deceased was more than Rs. 40,000/-p.a., as such, the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V. Act’ for short) is not maintainable. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondents who were the claimants in the Tribunal below have filed I.A.No1/2017 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to amend the provision to claim compensation mentioned in the claim petition as under Section 166 of the M.V. Act instead of 163-A of the same Act. 4. Both I.A.No.1/2017 and the main appeal are heard together. Perused the materials placed before the Court including the entire lower Court records. The points that arise for my consideration are: (i) Whether the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC deserves to be allowed? (ii) Whether the appeal deserves to be allowed? 5. Even though the appeal has been filed by the respondent-Insurance Company, but it has not disputed the occurrence of the accident on the date, time and place as alleged by the claimants in the claim petition. As such, the said point need not be re-analysed again. 6. The main contention of the appellant in the appeal as well the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claim petition being filed under Section 163-A of M.V. Act and that, even according to the claimants, the income of the deceased being more than Rs. 40,000/-p.a., the claim petition is not maintainable. It is their further argument that I.A.No.1/2017 filed by the claimants seeking conversion of the claim petition from the one filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act to the one under Section 166 of the same Act is also not permissible. 40,000/-p.a., the claim petition is not maintainable. It is their further argument that I.A.No.1/2017 filed by the claimants seeking conversion of the claim petition from the one filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act to the one under Section 166 of the same Act is also not permissible. Further, the argument of the learned counsel for the claimants is that, though the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, in view of the alleged income of the deceased, the petition is not maintainable, but the claimants can be permitted to convert the claim petition as the one filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act. It is their further argument that, when the claimants have given details of the income of the deceased to the counsel, mere misquoting the provision of law by their advocate would not deprive their legal entitlement to claim compensation. 7. Undisputedly, in the claim petition, the income of the deceased is shown as more than Rs. 40,000/-p.a. The claimants have stated that the deceased had a monthly income of Rs. 8,000/-, however, the Tribunal below in its judgment had taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/-p.m. Thus, it is the clear case where the claimants have not only pleaded that the income of the deceased was more than Rs. 40,000/-p.a., but the Tribunal below also gave its finding to the same effect. 8. A reading of Section 163-A along with II Schedule also make it very clear that, it is only those cases where the income of the injured/victim would be less than Rs. 40,000/-p.a. can maintain a claim petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. This makes it very clear that a claim petition under Section 163-A of M.V. Act is not maintainable where the income of the injured/victim is/was more than Rs. 40,000/-p.a. However, to overcome this, the claimants, who are respondents, have filed I.A.No.1/2017 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to amend the provision of the claim petition from Section 163-A of M.V. Act to Section 166 of the same Act. In the affidavit accompanying the application, the applicants/claimants have stated that they have claimed yearly income of the deceased at more than Rs. In the affidavit accompanying the application, the applicants/claimants have stated that they have claimed yearly income of the deceased at more than Rs. 40,000/-p.a. Though the provision of law mentioned in the claim petition was under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, but they conducted the case as if they have filed petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act. The Tribunal below also appreciated the materials and evidence in this regard. 9. The appellant-Insurance Company has not filed their objections to the said I.A.No.1/2017. However, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company in their argument vehemently submitted that such a conversion is not permissible in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda reported in 2004 ACJ 934 (SC). Further, Sri. R.R. Mane, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted in his argument that, even though the appellant has not taken a specific plea in their written statement in the claim petition regarding the maintainability of the claim petition, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal below on its own to decide the question on maintainability. 10. The Insurance Company as respondent No.2 in the Tribunal below nowhere in its written statement has taken a contention regarding non-maintainability of the claim petition under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, in view of the income of the deceased claiming to be more than Rs. 40,000/- p.a. It is for the first time, in the memorandum of appeal, the Insurance Company has taken the said contention as their major ground. 11. The dispensation of justice is not an unilateral process by the Court of law alone to do it only through the Presiding Officer of a Court. In the process of dispensation of justice, the role of an advocate and their participation neither can be underestimated nor can be ignored. It is only through proper legal assistance from the advocates, the Presiding Officer would be in a better position to author a qualitative judgment. No doubt, a Presiding Officer of a Court or a Tribunal or any similar adjudicating Authority is expected and required to have requisite knowledge of law and a proper reasoning capacity, but it does not mean that the practitioners before him have no duty to assist the Court in the process of the litigants getting justice. No doubt, a Presiding Officer of a Court or a Tribunal or any similar adjudicating Authority is expected and required to have requisite knowledge of law and a proper reasoning capacity, but it does not mean that the practitioners before him have no duty to assist the Court in the process of the litigants getting justice. It is in this process, the role of legal practitioners is of vital importance, which enables the Presiding Officer of the Court to understand the case more clearly, apply proper law, evaluate the merits of the case and finally deliver the justice to the parties through a reasoned judgment or order. That being the gist of the process of dispensation of justice, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that it is for the Court alone to look into the question of maintainability even if it is not pleaded or agitated, under the present circumstances of the case, is not acceptable. 12. Regarding the scope of Section 163-A and Section 166 of M.V. Act is concerned, as already observed above, it is only those categories of cases where the income of the injured/claimant/victim is not more than Rs. 40,000/-p.a. can file their claim petition under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, if they so feel like. There is no bar for them to file the petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act instead of Section 163-A of the same Act. However, if the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, the claimants need not take the risk of proving the alleged negligence on the part of the rider/driver of the alleged offending vehicle, which has caused the accident, whereas Section 166 of M.V. Act, requires the claimants to prove such negligence on the part of the rider/driver of the alleged offending vehicle. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the Deepal’s case (supra) submitted that the conversion of a claim petition under Section 163-A of M.V. Act to Section 166 of the same Act is not permissible. In the said Deepal’s case (supra), wherein the order of a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 19.04.2002 after doubting the correctness of 2-Judge Bench decision in Oriental Insurance Co. In the said Deepal’s case (supra), wherein the order of a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 19.04.2002 after doubting the correctness of 2-Judge Bench decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs Hansrajbhai Vs Kodala & Others had referred the matter to a 3-Judge Bench whereby and where under the proceedings under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act has been held to be a final proceeding as a result whereof the claimants had been debarred from proceeding with their further claims made on the basis of fault liability in terms of Section 165 thereof. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after a detailed discussion including regarding legislative history of the M.V. Act was pleased to observe that, in Kodala, the contention of the appellant that right to get compensation is in addition to no-fault liability was rightly rejected and given its conclusion that in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Hansrajbhai Vs Kodala & Others reported in 2001(5) SCC 175 has correctly been decided. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, they did not agree with the findings in Kodala (supra), that if a person invokes provisions of Section 163-A, the annual income of Rs. 40,000/-p.a. shall be treated as a cap. It further observed that, in its opinion, proceeding under Section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, whereunder only those whose annual income is up to Rs. 40,000/-p.a. can take the benefit thereof. All other claims were required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act. 14. From this, it cannot be inferred that there is prohibition for conversion of a claim petition from Section 163-A of M.V. Act to Section 166 of the same Act. Under Deepal’s case (supra), merely because it speaks as to who are eligible to file claim petition under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, it cannot be inferred that a claim petition filed under Section 163-A of M.V. Act cannot be converted to be the one filed under Section 166 of the same Act. As already observed above, in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, the claimant is required to plead and establish negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. As already observed above, in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, the claimant is required to plead and establish negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Section 163-A of M.V. Act which is stated to be a social security provision was brought on the statute book which creates an exception to the requirement of Section 166. If the claimant chooses to take the burden of pleading and proving the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, he cannot be prevented. As such, I am of the view that the power of the Tribunal or this Court to allow conversion of the claim petition is discretionary, which power the Tribunal or Court is expected to exercise taking into consideration the facts of the case before it including the conduct of the claimants. Thus, there is no bar in granting permission to convert a petition filed under Section 163-A of M.V. Act to the one under Section 166 of the same Act in genuine cases. 15. A similar view has been taken by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench in the case of New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Ashabai and Others reported in 2009 ACJ 163 ; The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in its order in W.P.(C) No.4850 of 2004 in the case of Dr.Gauri Shankar Prasad Verma and Another Vs. The Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi and Others, dated 06.08.2009; and by Sikkim High Court in the case of Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Master Suraj Subba and Another reported in (2014) Acci.C.R. 482 (Sikk.). 16. The learned counsel for the appellant in his argument pointed out that, if the conversion is allowed and the claim petition is taken as the one filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act, then the appellant will be unnecessarily burdened with interest from the date of filing of the petition under Section 163-A of M.V. Act till the date of conversion of the petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act. 17. The interest payable under Section 171 of M.V. Act is at the discretion of the Tribunal. 17. The interest payable under Section 171 of M.V. Act is at the discretion of the Tribunal. No doubt in a case like the one on hand where the negligence has not been specifically contended initially and the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, the opposite parties proceed in the matter without bothering about the concept of negligence alleged in the occurrence of the accident. Once the claim petition is converted to Section 166 of M.V. Act, the aspect of ‘negligence’ peeps in about which both the parties to the petition are required to deal with. Thus, for the first time, not only the claimants, but also the opposite parties may be required to do something in support of their pleadings regarding ‘negligence’. 18. Thus, the time elapsed in the matter when it was pending under Section 163-A of M.V. Act and the burden lying upon the parties by conversion of the claim petition into the one under Section 166 of M.V. Act cannot be ignored. The Tribunal below will certainly note that claimants had originally filed a petition which was not maintainable and subsequently the said petition came to be converted into the one under Section 166 of M.V. Act. While passing the final award, the Tribunal shall consider this factual aspect while exercising discretionary powers under Section 171 of M.V. Act. 19. With this, I am of the view that a conversion of claim petition in genuine cases from Section 163-A of M.V. Act to Section 166 of the same Act is permissible. The present case is of one such matter. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2017 deserves to be allowed and the claimants are required to be permitted to amend the provision of law mentioned in their claim petition from Section 163-A of M.V. Act to Section 166 of the same Act. 20. The second point is with respect to the consideration of the judgment and award under appeal on its merit. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2017 deserves to be allowed and the claimants are required to be permitted to amend the provision of law mentioned in their claim petition from Section 163-A of M.V. Act to Section 166 of the same Act. 20. The second point is with respect to the consideration of the judgment and award under appeal on its merit. In view of the finding of this Court with respect to point No.1 above, according to which, the claimants would be permitted to amend their claim petition and convert it as a petition filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act, consequentially, the respondents before the Tribunal below may have to be permitted to file their written statement or additional statement if any and thereafter, the Tribunal below may have to re-frame or recast the issues, as need arises and allow the parties to lead their further evidence, if any. Since all these process requires to be restarted, the judgment and award under appeal deserves to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2017 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC is allowed. Consequently, the appeal is also allowed and the judgment and award dated 29.05.2008 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – III, Bagalkote in MVC No.818/2007 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – III, Bagalkote with a direction to permit the claimants before it to convert their claim petition filed under Section 163-A of M.V. Act into a petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act by carrying out the amendment of provision of law in their claim petition. Consequently, the Tribunal below shall also allow the respondents before it to file their written statement/additional statement as the case may be and re-cast or re-frame the issues, if need arises and in case, the issues are re-casted or re-framed, permit the parties before it to lead their further evidence confining to the re-famed or re-casted part of the issues only and dispose of the matter afresh. However, in case the claimants succeed in their claim petition, awarding of interest, if any under Section 171 of M.V. Act for the period of the claim petition being under Section 163-A of M.V. Act would be at the discretion of the Tribunal and in the light of the observations made above. However, in case the claimants succeed in their claim petition, awarding of interest, if any under Section 171 of M.V. Act for the period of the claim petition being under Section 163-A of M.V. Act would be at the discretion of the Tribunal and in the light of the observations made above. In order to enable the Tribunal to expeditiously dispose of the matter, the parties herein are directed to appear before the Tribunal below without anticipating any fresh notice or summons from it, at 11.00 a.m. on 18.09.2017. Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along with lower Court records to the concerned Tribunal below forthwith.