SUNITA AND ORS. Vs. BALWANT SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimants are in revision aggrieved against the order dated 12.08.2014 (P-7) passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar whereby their application for converting the claim petition under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been dismissed. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned Court below has wrongly dismissed the application, as it is settled position of law that a claimant cannot be disqualified merely on the ground that he had earlier filed an application under Section 163-A and subsequently wants to convert it under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Thus, it was argued that merely by changing the claim petition from Section 163-A to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act will not change the nature of the case at all and would only assist the court in adjudicating the matter in proper manner.

(2.) After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioners and perusing the paper book, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the present claim petition was filed by the petitioners on 14.12.2011 under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is further apparent from the record that the issues in this case were framed on 20.07.2012 and the petitioners/claimants had already led their evidence and closed the same on 26.10.2013. When the present application for converting the claim petition was moved, the matter was already fixed for respondents evidence and the respondents had examined two witnesses. No explanation is coming forth from the side of the petitioners as to why there is a delay of more than 01 year and 10 months in filing the instant application from the date of filing of the claim petition. No due diligence is coming forth on record. No doubt, a claim petition filed under Section 163-A or under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial legislation. However, when once the parties have already taken a stand and the petitioners have led their evidence and the respondents have also examined few witnesses, then the Clock cannot be set back and a denovo trial cannot be started. Further, from the perusal of the issues it is apparent that no issue was framed with regard to whether the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 or not, which in the opinion of this Court is the most material issue in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. In view of the above, no fault can be found in the findings returned by the learned trial Court and the same are hereby affirmed and consequently the revision petition is hereby dismissed.