KAMLESH CHAUDHARY Vs. KANWAR BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') challenges order dated 11.8.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal has declined the application filed by the claimant-petitioners seeking amendment of the claim petition under Order VI Rule 17 of Code for incorporating the additional plea to claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'the Act').

(2.) FEW facts necessary for deciding the legal controversy raised in the present petition may first be noticed. On 3.3.1995, an accident took place between Maruti car No. DL-2C-9186 and tractor No. HYF-2084, belonging to respondent No. 2. The tractor was driven by respondent No. 1 and alleged to have been insured with respondent No. 3. The husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioners 2, 3 and 4 was travelling in the Maruti car. On account of the accident, Parkashbir Chaudhary died and a claim petition has been filed by his dependent-petitioners 1 to 4 under section 166 read with Section 168 of the Act. Three other claims petitions arising out of the same accident titled as 'Rupa Girdhar v. Kanwar Bhan', 'Krishna Devi v. Kalu Ram' and 'Hans Raj v. Kanwar Bhan' have also been filed. Civil Revision No. 376 of 2002 has arisen out of the claim petition filed by Rupa Girdhar and others on account of the death of Dr. Ravi Kant Girdhar. During the pendency of the claim petition, Mrs. Kamlesh Chaudhary and others who have filed separate claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, filed an application seeking amendment of the claim petition to add additional plea to claim compensation under section 163-A of the Act on the basis of structured formula as given in the Schedule. The application was contested by respondent No. 1-driver of the offending vehicle raising the objection that the same was not maintainable especially when detailed evidence had already been led by the parties. The tribunal dismissed the application by observing that such an amendment is not permissible under Section 163-B of the Act which prohibits filing of a claim petition under both the sections. The operative part of the order dated 11.8.2000 passed by the Tribunal reads as under :-

(3.) THE above principles enunciated by their Lordships in Hansrajbhai V. Kodala's case (supra) do not leave any manner of doubt that a claimant can either make a claim under Section 166 or 163-A of the Act and cannot pursue both the remedies because both are substantive remedies. Furthermore, the basic object of incorporating Section 163-A of the Act for providing social security and speedy remedy to the claimants would be defeated. Therefore, the present petition revision petition along with Civil Revision No. 376 of 2002 are disposed of by issuing following directions :-