NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. ABBAS BEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by an order dated 3-8-2005 made in I.A.No.339 of 2005 in O.P. No.768 of 1999 on the file of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Mahaboobnagar.

(2.) Petitioner - National Insurance Company Limited is the 2nd respondent in the claim petition (O.P.) filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein. Respondent No.3 herein is the 1st respondent in the claim petition. The said I.A. was filed seeking to amend the provision of law in the Claim Petition from Section 166 to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). After hearing both sides, the Tribunal allowed the above I.A. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed by the Insurance Company.

(3.) Sri T.Mahender Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the Court below has grossly erred in holding that there is no prohibition under the Act for conversion of provision of law from Section 166 to Section 163-A of the Act. In fact, a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable in view of Rule 473 of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Even otherwise, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC makes it clear that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced. In the instant case, the trial was concluded and the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, the present application ought not to have been entertained by the Tribunal, The conversion of provision of law from Section 166 to Section 163-A of the Act completely changes the nature of the claim; therefore, such a change in the provision of law could not have been permitted, particularly, at that belated stage. The proof that required for a claim under Section 166 of the Act is altogether different from a claim under Section 163-A of the Act. In a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Act, proving of negligence is a must, whereas Section 163-A of the Act is a special provision made for the purpose of a claim as if something akin to 'no fault liability'. Respondents 1 and 2 herein let in the evidence and having realized that they may not be able to prove the negligence on the part of the Driver of the lorry, have conveniently sought for amendment of provision of law in making the claim, which is not permissible under the law. No option is available to the claimants for amendment of provision of law and even the Tribunal also cannot alter the provision of law. Conversion sought for by the claimants is only to overcome the proof of negligence. The Tribunal has erroneously ordered the petition for altering the provision of law in the claim petition. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgments reported in Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004 (3) ALD 81 (SC) = 2004 ACJ 934; Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others, 2003 (1) ALD 1 (SC); V. Kalpana v. P. Venugopal Reddy, 2005 (6) ALD 79 = 2005 (5) ALT 419; Akula Rajaiah v. Kannamalla Krupamma, 2005 (2) ALD 41 = 2005 (2) ALT 457 and Rakesh Bhatia v. G.Parimala, 2005 (4) ALD 461 = 2005 (4) ALT 245.