The Motor Vehicles Act promotes just compensation for victims of accidents; procedural technicalities can be bypassed when evidence supports negligence, allowing claim petitions to be converted to ensure fairness.

JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J .

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance company against the award dated 18.03.2025 passed in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the claim petition filed by the claimants was allowed and appellant-Insurance company was made liable to pay at first instance and recovery rights were granted to recover the same from respondent No.1 to 4 jointly and severally.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case are that that on 16.08.2017, Harmanpreet Singh, had gone to Rose Marry School, Balluana when he was coming back alongwith his colleagues namely Jagdeep Singh and Dharmpreet Singh on motor cycle being driven by Harmanpreet Singh and they were being followed by Jagjit Singh (claimant no. 2) father of Harmanpreet Singh, who (father) had gone to school to enquire about the study of Harmanpreet Singh. When they reached on main road, then bus no. PB-03AJ-6874 was coming from backside being driven by its driver respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner without giving any horn/signal struck the motor cycle, due to which motorcycle fell down and all the occupants also fell on the ground and received injuries and in the meantime school bus/van came there and took the injured to Civil Hospital, Bathinda, where Harmanpreet Singh succumbed due to head injury, which was caused by the respondent No.1 while driving the abovesaid vehicle on very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and out of use of the motor vehicle. The pillion riders who also received serious injuries were referred to Kalra Hospital, Bathinda.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and contested the claim petition by filing their separate written replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

1. Whether Harmanpreet Singh son of Jagjit Singh died due to accident caused by respondent Pavittar Singh @ Pamma while driving PRTC Bus bearing No.PB-03AJ-6874 rashly and negligently?OPP.

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to claim any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?OPP.

3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable?OPR.

4. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of parties?OPR.

5. Relief.

5. Thereafter, both the parties led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants. However, the appellant-Insurance company was made liable to pay at first instance and recovery rights were granted to recover the same from respondent No.1 to 4 jointly and severally.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

7. Learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company contends that the claim petition was originally filed under Section 163-A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT . During its pendency, by virtue of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, Section 163-A was omitted and replaced by Section 164, whereupon the claimants sought conversion of the petition under Section 164.

8. He further contends that the learned Tribunal erred in treating the instant petition under Section 166 of the Act, despite there being no application or consent from the claimants. Such a course, it is urged, is legally unsustainable. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed.

9. I have heard learned counsel