HAJI IBRAHIM SAMA Vs. P. SUBARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition challenges the order dtd. 8/12/2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anjar at Kachchh, below exh. 29 and consequent order, passed below exh. 1 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1270 of 2015 rejecting the plaint.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Jitendra Malkan with learned advocate Mr. Vismay Malkan for the petitioner submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in not allowing exh. 29 whereby, the learned Tribunal, without even considering the endorsement made by the Advocate from side of the claimant of having expressed no objection if the Truck bearing registration No. GQD-4371 owner and insurance company are joined as parties, have rejected the claims petition.

(3.) The learned Tribunal observing that the claim petition was not under Sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act ) and to prove the adverse evidence of negligence under third party liability of the opposite vehicle, cannot be allowed against the insurance company of the own truck, which was driven by the claimant himself and that, the petitioner cannot be allowed to change the version of the truck driven by him and to join the owner and the insurance company of the own truck. Hence, the learned Tribunal observed that the nature of the claim cannot be permitted to be changed from Sec. 166 to 163-A of the MV Act and the observation so made did not allow the amendment of the claim petition to implead as prayed by third opponent which the learned Tribunal observed that it would be a change of nature of the claim petition under Sec. 163-A of the MV Act.