PRASANTH Vs. SHIHABUDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the claimant in O.P(M.V) No.891/2011, MACT, Thiruvananthapuram, filed by him invoking the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation. According to the petitioner, while he was riding on a motor cycle, it colluded with a motor cycle driven by the second respondent herein. Both sustained injuries. Alleging that the incident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent, the petitioner filed O.P(M.V). 253 of 2011 before the MACT Attingal, invoking section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent herein filed O.P(MV).891 of 2011 before the MACT, Thiruvananthapuram invoking section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming that the incident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the petitioner. Pending the proceedings, the insurer in O.P(M.V).253 of 2011 moved the High Court and got that OP(MV) transferred from MACT, Attingal to MACT, Thiruvananthapuram to be tried along with OP(MV) 891 of 2011. It was thereafter numbered as OP(MV) 2879 of 2018. Joint trial was ordered on 19.01.2019. The petitioner in OP(MV) 891 of 2011 was examined as PW1 on 7.11.2019 and Exts.A1 to A14 were marked.

(2.) While so, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.1888 of 2020 to convert the claim from one under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to one under S.163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was dismissed by the court below by an order on the ground that joint trial has been ordered , trial had commenced in OP(MV.)No.891 of 2011 and hence, in the light of the decision reported in National Insurance Company Limited v. K.M.Jabbar , 2007 1 KerLT 331, the option to convert an application under section 166 to 163A or vice versa should have been exercised at any time prior to the settlement of issues. Thereafter the petitioner filed I.A.2026 of 2020 to review the above order which was also happened to be dismissed. Challenging the orders rejecting the application for amending the claim as well as the review petition, petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the insurance company.