JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. In this writ petition petitioner-Insurance Company has challenged the order dtd. 11/6/2015 on the file of the II Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, allowing the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the claimant/respondents herein. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this petition are referred to with their status and rank before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 3. Claimants have preferred application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation on account of the alleged accident occurred on 29/5/2010. The said petition was contested by respondent-Insurance Company by filing statement of objection. In the meanwhile, claimants have filed application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment of the petition is to consider the claim petition under Sec. 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the said application was resisted by insurance Company. The Tribunal, by order dtd. 11/6/2015 allowed the application filed by the claimants and being aggrieved by the same, respondentInsurance has preferred this petition. 4. Heard Sri B.C. Shivanne Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Insurance Company; Sri M.T. Jagan Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent claimants. 5. Sri B.C. Shivanne Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal allowing the claimants to amend the petition to consider the same under Sec. 163A of MV Act is contrary to law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY AND OTHERS v. ANITHA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2007 KAR 28 and he further argued that the claimants cannot be permitted to scale down the annual income of the deceased by restricting the same to Rs.40, 000.00 so as to bring the case within the ambit of Sec. 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. Per contra Sri M.T. Jagan Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimants sought to justify the impugned order. 7. 6. Per contra Sri M.T. Jagan Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimants sought to justify the impugned order. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the claim petition is filed under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act whereby the claimants have stated that the deceased was carrying on sheep business and was earning Rs.15, 000.00 per month as per Annexure-A. However, in the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure the petitioners are seeking amendment of the claim petition to bring the same under Sec. 163-A of the Act. Having taken note of the provisions of Sec. 163-A of the Act, the claimants need not prove the negligence on the part of the offending vehicle as well as the annual income of the deceased shall be within Rs.40, 000.00. In that view of the matter, taking into account the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of ANITHA (supra), I am of the view that the impugned order dtd. 11/6/2015 is liable to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration taking into account the scope and ambit to 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, as well as the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court. Ordered accordingly. In that view of the matter, writ petition is allowed. Order dtd. 11/6/2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on IA filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure in MVC No.5868 of 2013 is set aside. Since the claim petition is of the year 2013, Tribunal shall dispose of the case at the earliest.