JUDGMENT

G. P. Mittal, J. (ORAL)

1. The Appellant Steel Wool Corporation who is the owner of maruti van No.DL-2CF-3308 which was involved in an accident resulting in fatal injuries to Mohd. Haider impugns a judgment dated 11.04.2005 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) while holding that the Claimants (Respondents No.1 to 4) were unsuccessful to prove the negligence on the part of the Second Appellant converted the Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act) to under Section 163-A and awarded the compensation on the basis of the structured formula. The Appellants grievance is that the Claims Tribunal was not empowered to convert the Petition filed under Section 166 of the Act to one under Section 163-A of the Act particularly when the Respondents No.1 to 4 amended the Claim Petition so as to delete Section 163-A of the Act.

2. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the Appellants placed reliance on the Supreme Court report in Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2004) 5 SCC 385.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents (Claimants) urged that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act dealing with award of compensation to the victim of road accidents is a beneficial piece of legislation. The Claims Tribunal and Courts, therefore, can convert a Claim Petition from Section 166 to Section 163-A of the Act where the negligence is not proved. The learned counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4 places reliance on the judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Amru Ram & Ors., (MAC. APP.533/2008) decided on 12.11.2008.

4. First of all, I may refer to the factual position. A Claim Petition under Sections 166 and 163-A of the Act was filed by the Respondents No.1 to 4 on 18.02.2003. An Application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC dated 10.12.2003 was moved by the Respondents No.1 to 4 so as to delete Section 163-A. The said Application was allowed by an order of even date on the ground that the Petition could be amended at the initial stage of the inquiry. An amended Petition was filed on 10.12.2003 under Sections 166 and 140 of the Act. In Deepal Girishbhai Soni, it was held as under:

"59. The question may be considered from different angles. As for example, if in the proceedings under Section 166 of the Act, after obtaining compensation under Section 163A, the awardee fails to prove that the accident took place owing to negligence on the part of the driver or if it is found as of fact that the deceased or the victim himself was responsible therefore as a consequence whereto the Tribunal refuses to grant any compensation; would it be within its jurisdiction to direct refund either in whole or in part the amount of compensation already paid on the basis of structured formula? Furthermore, if in a case the Tribunal upon considering the relevant materials comes to the conclusion that no case has been made out for awarding the compensation under Section 166 of the Act, would it be at liberty to award compensation in terms of Section 163A thereof.

60. The answer to both the aforementioned questions must be rendered in the negative. In other words, the question of adjustment or refund will invariably arise in the event if it is held that the amount of compensation paid in the proceedings under Section 163A of the Act, is interim in nature.

5. While examining the question of conversion of a Claim Petition under Section 166 to under Section 163-A of the Act, this Court in Prem Devi & Ors. v. Jagdish Kumar & Ors., (FAO.398/2000) decided on 02.07.2012 held that a Claimant is entitled to amend the Petition from one under Section 166 of the Act to under Section 163 of the Act in appropriate cases. But on interpretation of Deepal Girishbhai Soni, it was held that if negligence is not proved, the Claims Tribunal cannot suo motu convert a Petition under Section 166 to one under Section 163-A of the Act. Para 14 of the report in