Genuine claimants should not be deprived of their claims due to lack of legal knowledge, and beneficial legislations such as section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act should be liberally interpreted to ensure access to compensation.

I.M. Quddusi, J.

This appeal has been filed by the claimants against the impugned award dated 31.12.2004 passed by the Ninth Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC) Bilaspur (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 6 of 2004 dismissing the claim of the appellants. Brief facts of the case as per the version of the claimants are that the deceased Baldau Prasad Yadav was a tractor driver and was working with non-applicant No. 1 on monthly wages of Rs. 2,000. In the intervening night of 2/3.7.2003 when he was ploughing the field of non-applicant No. 1 at his instructions near Ratanpur Khuntaghat by tractor, the tractor turned turtle and he died. Earlier, the tractor had mechanical defect and several times, it was brought to the notice of the owner, i.e., non-applicant No. 1, but he did not get it repaired. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 40 years. The claimants being legal representatives of the deceased have made a claim to the tune of Rs. 14,60,000 on various heads for the death of the deceased.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that he docs not want to argue on merits as the deceased who met with an accident was himself driving the tractor and as such due to lack of legal advice instead of mentioning the claim application u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was wrongly mentioned as u/s 166 and the Tribunal has decided the claim application treating the same as u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. An application has also been moved in this regard to treat the claim application u/s 163A. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Full Bench of Karnataka High Court in Guruanna Vadi and another Vs. The General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and another (2001) ACJ 1528.

(37) The only bar provided for exercising an option in the matter of filing a claim petition for compensation is to be found in section 163B which states that 'where a person is entitled to claim compensation u/s 140 and section 163A, he shall file the claim under either of the said sections and not under both'. There is no prohibition in any other provision of the Act from switching over the claim made u/s 166 to section 163A provided the accident took place on 14.10.1994 or thereafter because section 163A came on the statute book only with effect from 14.10.1994, subject of course, to the claimants satisfying other requirements such as the outer income limit mentioned in the Second Schedule. Section 163A is a beneficial legislation and provides for payment of compensation based on structured formula without requiring pleading or establishing that the death or permanent disability in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or negligence or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or any other person. Such a beneficial legislation has to be given liberal interpretation. Therefore, we answer this question in the affirmative by holding that a claimant can move the court for amendment of his claim petition filed u/s 166 to that of a petition u/s 163A, at any stage of the proceedings and it would be for the concerned court to pass an order on that application in accordance with law.

Thus the Full Bench came to conclusion that the claimant during the pendency of the proceeding at the original or appellate stage can amend his claim petition u/s 166 to petition u/s 163A provided he satisfies the other conditions such as the income factor, etc.

3. With regard to the income, Tribunal has also found the income of the deceased as Rs. 2,400 per month or Rs. 28,800 per annum, which is less than the outer limit of Rs. 40,000 as per the Schedule prescribed u/s 163A of the Act.

4. We are of the opinion that the poor persons like the claimants should not be sufferers due to lack of legal knowledge and legal advice and they should not be deprived of their genuine claim. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Tribunal. In view of the facts and c