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 section 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 section 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 section 166 to that under section 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. 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 section 166 to a petition under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Similarly, a petition can be changed from section 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. 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 section 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 section 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 Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004 ACJ 934 (SC).;