Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
Kasthuri @ A.Kasthuri Bai - Petitioner
Vs.
P.T.Prem Satheesh - Respondent
C.R.P.No.1428 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.9371 of 2019
Decided On : 05-01-2023
Constitution of India, 1949 – Article 227 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI Rule 17 – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166, 163A – Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court – Accident – Compensation – Civil Revision Petition has been filed against fair and final order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chennai in dismissing application filed by petitioner to amend claim petition by striking out Section 166 and replacing it Motor Vehicles Act – Held, Court need not go into issue of negligence attitude can never be entertained every claimant who finds that evidence collected gathered during trial is going against resort to such a practice – Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation that does not mean that claimants can be permitted to blow hot and cold and attempt to utilize the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act to suit their convenience – Court below in refusing to entertain amendment application does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction – Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and final order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai in M.P.No.4189 of 2018 in MCOP No.7086 of 2013, dated 13.12.2018, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. to amend the claim petition by striking out Section 166 and replacing it with Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. The short facts that are required to be considered are; the petitioner filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The specific pleading that was made by the petitioner with regard to the manner in which the accident took place, is extracted hereunder :
3. The Insurance Company contested the claim petition by filing detailed counter affidavit. The petition reached the stage of trial and the evidence was adduced both on the side of the petitioner as well as the Insurance Company. At that stage, the application for amendment in MP.No.4189 of 2018 came to be filed by the petitioner to amend the provision under which the claim petition was filed from Section 166 to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. The above application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 13.12.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.
5. Heard Mr.F.Terry Chella Raja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.S.Vadivel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and that even as per the pleadings made in the claim petition, the negligence was attributed only to the driver of the car in which petitioner had traveled. Hence, even at the time when the claim petition was filed, instead of mentioning the provision as Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, by oversight, it was mentioned as Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and this mistake should not be put against the petitioner and the petitioner should not be deprived of the compensation for the injuries sustained by her. In order to explain the scope of Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the judgment of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar and another reported in 2017 (2) TN MAC 753 (SC).
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Court below failed to consider the fact that in a case where the claim petition is filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is not necessary to prove negligence and the accident per se, will entitle the claimant for compensation. To reiterate the scope of a beneficial legislation like the Motor Vehicles Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the following judgments :
(b) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. V.Bhuvaneswari reported in 2019 (1) TN MAC 72 (DB).
8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submitted that the application for amendment was filed by the petitioner only to get over the evidence that was staring at the face of the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner filed the claim petition with a specific allegation of negligence on the part of the car driver. However, in the course of
Amendment of a claim petition from S.166 to S.163-A is permissible since negligence need not be proven under S.163-A.
While the accident itself gives cause of action for relaxation of compensation under Section 163A-The cause of action for sustaining a claim under Section 166 is not merely the accident, but a tortio....
Amendment to change MV Act claim section allowed post-trial to protect compensation rights despite due diligence requirement.
Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act does not require proof of negligence for compensation claims.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurer cannot raise a defense of negligence in a claim proceeding under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of Sec. 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and the precedent set by the Division Bench of the Court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
