RAJILA BEEVI Vs. SILAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An application to amend a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short) to one under Section 163A of the Act was filed by the petitioner, which stands rejected by the impugned order. The Tribunal was of the view that the nature and character of the petition would change if the amendment is allowed. The petitioner contends otherwise. The sustainability of the order passed by the IV Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam is under challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Sri. Ashraf, the husband of the petitioner, was a fish vendor. The respondents 7 and 8 are the children of the petitioner. On 12.8.2014 at about 5 a.m, while Ashraf was travelling in an auto rickshaw driven by one Al Ameen, transporting a consignment of fish, the auto rickshaw dashed on a KSRTC bus. Serious injuries were sustained by the occupants of the auto rickshaw and they were pronounced dead on the next day. The sons of the petitioner are working elsewhere and she had to burden the consequences. She was given legal advice to file a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation. In the petition so filed as O.P. (M.V.) No. 1215/2017, the monthly income of the deceased was given as Rs.15,000/-. This, according to the petitioner, was based on the suggestion of the Advocate whom she had engaged. The petitioner states that she is in urgent need of money and when she made further enquiries, she was advised to seek amendment of the petition to one under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and seek compensation on structured formula basis. Invoking Rule 395 of the Motor Vehicle Rules and Order VI Rule 17, she filed an application seeking to amend the claim petition and sought for grant of compensation under Section 163A of the Act. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, rejected her application seeking amendment on the ground that the amendment if allowed would change the entire nature and character of the petition.

(3.) I have heard Sri. R. Rajesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Jacob Mathew, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the 6th respondent, Sri. P.K. Manoj Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, Sri P.C.Chacko, the learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC.