GIRIJA Vs. SASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the claimants in OP(MV) No.88/2009 pending before the Additional District Judge (MACT), Thrissur. The petitioner filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation in relation to the death of the predecessor of the petitioners. It seems that they received the compensation under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thereafter, the Police filed charge sheet in the crime. On noticing that, it was adverse to the claims setup by the petitioner, they filed IA No.6850/2016 in OP(MV) No.88/2009, to convert the application to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This was dismissed by the learned Tribunal by Ext.P1 order holding that sufficient reason was not shown.

(2.) Assailing this, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no legal bar in conversion of the application filed under Section 166 to Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was contended by the learned Counsel that, being a beneficial legislation and constituted for the purpose of enabling the claimants to get compensation in appropriate cases, the law has to lean in favour of substantial justice and the learned Tribunal ought not have dismissed the application. To substantiate his contention that there was no legal bar in so converting it to an application under Section 163(A), the learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Dhanbaji Kanji Gadhvi [2011 (1) KLT 617), (SC)]. It was held by the Honourable Supreme Court that the object of Section 163A of the Act, which was inserted by Section 51 of Act 54 of 1994 and the non obstante clause with which sub section 1 of 163A commences, it was manifest that the legislature did not intend to prevent the claimant from getting compensation as per the structured formula, merely because in his original claim petition he had claimed compensation on the basis of fault liability principle. The Court concluded that there was no prohibition in any provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the claimant praying for the compensation as per the structured formula after having filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act. However, the respondents, if they have received the compensation, finally determined and settled under Section 163(A) of the Act are precluded from proceeding further with the petition filed under Section 166 of the Act.

(3.) Opposing the application, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company relied on the decision of the Single Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Jabbar [2007 (1) KLT 331] at paragraph 15, wherein it was held that the option to convert an application under Section 166 to Section 163(A), or conversely should be exercised at any time, however propriety demands that it should be done before settlement of issues. In this case, it was contended that the petitioners have obtained the compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. If that be so, it can be treated as a case wherein the parties have gone for trial and thereafter, the petitioners are not entitled to get the application converted, it was contended.