NARSHIJI NAGAJI MAJIRANA Vs. MANGILAL AMTURAM BISHNOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Ms Megha Jani, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 waives service of Rule. As far as respondent No.1 is concerned, since he was a truck driver and does not have any conflicting interest with respondents No.2 and 3 and the effective relief sought by the petitioner-claimant in the Motor Accident Claim Petition is against the owner and insurer of the truck in question, and since respondent No.1 was already served earlier, the Court does not think it fit to issue notice of Rule on respondent No.1 and to wait for him to appear. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is taken up for final disposal today.

(2.) The petitioner filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No.32 of 2003 praying for compensation on account of death of his son Mansukh Narishiji Majirana who expired in a motor vehicle accident at Gandhidham on 31.12.2002. The claim petition was filed under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Within a few months of the date of filing the original claim petition under Sections 140, 166 and 170 of the Act, on 7.4.2003 the petitioner filed application Exh. 9 praying that the main petition may be treated as a petition under Section 163-A of the Act instead of a petition under Sections 140, 166 and 170 of the Act. The claimant pointed out that no orders were passed either on the original claim petition or on the application for compensation under Section 140. While making the said application Exh.9, the petitioner relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Chintharbhai Sibbabhai & Ors., 2003 (1) GLH 394 wherein this Court was pleased to observe as under:-

(3.) By the impugned order dated 10.4.2003, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gandhidham Kutch has rejected the said application Exh.9 on the ground that there is no provision for converting a petition under Section 166 into a petition under Section 163-A of the Act and that no reasonable cause is shown for making the said application. The Tribunal further observed that the claim petition is filed in the year 2003 and, therefore, its conversion into a petition under Section 163-A solely for the purpose of expeditious disposal cannot be said to be a reasonable ground for granting the application. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the original claimant has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.