STEEL WOOL CORPORATION Vs. HUSANA KHATUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant Steel Wool Corporation who is the owner of maruti van No.DL-2CF-3308 which was involved in an accident resulting in fatal injuries to Mohd. Haider impugns a judgment dated 11.04.2005 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) while holding that the Claimants (Respondents No.1 to 4) were unsuccessful to prove the negligence on the part of the Second Appellant converted the Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act) to under Section 163-A and awarded the compensation on the basis of the structured formula. The Appellants grievance is that the Claims Tribunal was not empowered to convert the Petition filed under Section 166 of the Act to one under Section 163-A of the Act particularly when the Respondents No.1 to 4 amended the Claim Petition so as to delete Section 163-A of the Act.

(2.) IN support of the contention, the learned counsel for the Appellants placed reliance on the Supreme Court report in Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2004) 5 SCC 385.

(3.) FIRST of all, I may refer to the factual position. A Claim Petition under Sections 166 and 163-A of the Act was filed by the Respondents No.1 to 4 on 18.02.2003. An Application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC dated 10.12.2003 was moved by the Respondents No.1 to 4 so as to delete Section 163-A. The said Application was allowed by an order of even date on the ground that the Petition could be amended at the initial stage of the inquiry. An amended Petition was filed on 10.12.2003 under Sections 166 and 140 of the Act. In Deepal Girishbhai Soni, it was held as under: