Back
2006 Supreme(P&H) 3505
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Hemant Gupta, J.
Vijender Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Kailash Sharma and others - Respondents
C.R. No. 3128 of 2005.
Decided On : 11 September, 2006
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 3:Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate.
Once a petitioner elects to pursue a claim under a specific section of the Motor Vehicles Act, they cannot subsequently change the claim to another section.
Headnote:
Section 166 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The petitioner's attempt to change the claim from Section 163-A to Section 166 of the Act was dismissed by the court, as the petitioner had initially chosen to pursue the claim under Section 163-A and could not subsequently assert a claim under Section 166.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner initially filed a petition claiming compensation under Section 163-A and Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Subsequently, the petitioner sought to treat the petition under Section 166 instead of Section 163-A.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that once the petitioner had elected to pursue the claim under Section 163-A, they could not subsequently claim compensation under Section 166. The court concluded that there was no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Tribunal, and dismissed the petition.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner could change the claim from Section 163-A to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once the petitioner had elected to pursue the claim under Section 163-A, they were not allowed to subsequently claim compensation under Section 166.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed by the court.
Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) - The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, dated 24.5.2005, whereby an application of the claimant-petitioner to treat the same under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was dismissed.
2. Initially, the petitioner had filed the petition claiming compensation under Section 163-A and Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). But on 24.11.2003, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made a statement to persue the petition under Section 163-A of the Act. By virtue of the present application, the petitioner wants to treat the petition under Section 166 of the Act instead of under Section 163-A of the Act.
3. Once the petitioner has made a statement to continue the petition under Section 163-A of the Act, it is not open to the petitioner to turn out to assert that his claim of compensation be treated under Section 166 of the Act. Having elected his remedy to pursue his claim under Section 163-A of the Act, the petitioner cannot claim compensation now under Section 166 of the Act.
Consequently, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
Dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
