Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) arises out of an order dated 22nd August, 2013 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge (EC Act)/Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shahjahanpur (the Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 297 of 2010 (Smt. Richa Khare v. Ankit Gupta and others) whereby the Tribunal has rejected the amendment application of the claimants-revisionists under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

2. The essential facts are that late Sanjay Khare, husband of the revisionist No. 1 and father of the revisionist Nos. 2 and 3, was a Government employee working on the post of Assistant Nazir (I) at District Court, Shahjahanpur. He met an accident on 25th September, 2008 with a truck bearing Registration No. U.P.27C-5624. He succumbed to his injuries on 30th September, 2008. The revisionists moved a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) which was registered as Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 297 of 2010 (Smt. Richa Khare v. Ankit Gupta and others). The case of the claimants-revisionists was that on the fateful day the driver of the offending vehicle, which is owned by the respondent No. 1 and insured by the respondent No. 2, was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and he hit the husband of the revisionist No. 1 who was returning to his home. In the claim petition, a claim of Rs. 50,45,400/- was raised. The claim petition was contested by the defendants-respondents.

3. In the claim petition the claimants-revisionists moved an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on 07th August, 2013 on the ground that due to clerical mistake, the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Act instead of Section 166. Thus, the claimants sought the only relief for amendment of section of the claim petition. The said amendment was opposed by the respondents on the ground that it had been filed at a belated stage. The amendment application has been rejected by the Tribunal by the impugned order dated 22nd August, 2013 on the ground that there was an option to the claimants to move the claim petition either under Section 163A or under Section 166 of the Act. The Tribunal further took the view that the proceeding under Section 163A of the Act is of final nature which cannot be converted, and in this regard the Tribunal has placed reliance on the judgements in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, AIR 2004 SC 2107 : (2004) 5 SCC 385, New India Assurance Company Limited v. V.B.N. Panchan Bhai Patel, 2007 ACJ 2067 (Guj)(DB), and United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satya Narayan Sharma, 2008 ACJ 909 Raj (FB). The Tribunal has further held that the amendment application has been filed after a considerable delay.

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the claimants-revisionists did not seek any amendment in the pleading or the relief of the claim petition but they only wanted to amend the section, under which the claim petition was filed. The amendment was not going to change the basic nature of the claim petition. In fact, the amendment was a bona fide and legitimate. However, the Tribunal has taken a hypertechnical approach in rejecting the amendment. Lastly, he urged that under Section 163A of the Act a person whose annual income is Rs. 40,000/- or less is covered, which is evident from the Second Schedule of the Act. Under Section 163A of the Act, being a social security provision providing for a distinct scheme, only those persons whose annual income is upto Rs. 40,000/- can take the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act. He has placed reliance on several judgements of the Supreme Court and other High Courts in Rameshkumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports Private Limited and others, 2012 Law Suit (SC