1. Motor accident claim — Amendment of claim petition — Conversion from Section 166 to Section 163A, Motor Vehicles Act. (Para 8 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(MP) 411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
AMIT SETH, J.
ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Ruksana And Others - Respondent
Misc. Petition No. 7053 of 2025
Decided On : 22-06-2026
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal alongwith Ms. Srishti Sharma – Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri Mudit Goswami - Advocate
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri Bal Krishna Agrawal alongwith Ms. Srishti Sharma – Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri Mudit Goswami - Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
A claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act can be converted into one under Section 163-A at any stage of the proceedings, as the law prohibits simultaneous remedies but not conversion, ensuring the beneficial objectives of the welfare legislation are met.
Headnote:
(1) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 6 R. 17 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss. 166 and 163A -- conversion of claim -- claim petition u/s. 166 can be converted into one u/s. 163A at any stage -- such conversion does not change nature of proceedings by itself in manner that would cause irreparable prejudice to opposite party -- order of Tribunal allowing aforesaid amendment not erroneous for same being in accordance with welfare scheme of Act -- interference unwarranted. SLP (C) No. 27621 of 2019 decided on 13.2.2025 followed. 2008 SCC Online Del. 626, 2014 SCC Online Del. 7523 and M. P. No. 973 of 2024 decided on 7.5.2024 relied on. (2004) 5 SCC 385 referred to. [Paras 14 & 15
(2) Constitution of India -- S. 227 -- scope -- order of Tribunal does not suffer from any palpable illegality or jurisdictional error -- view taken is a possible view -- not required to be interfered with under Art. 227. (2010) 8 SCC 329 followed. [Para 17
¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 6 fu- 17 & e¨Vj ;ku vfèkfu;e] 1988 & èkkjk 166 rFkk 163d & nkos dk laifjorZu & èkkjk 166 d¢ vèkhu nkok vthZ dks èkkjk 163d d¢ vèkhu nkok vthZ esa fdlh Òh çØe ij laifjofrZr fd;k tk ldrk gS & ,sls laifjorZu ls dk;Zokgh dh çÑfr esa Loeso bl jhfr dk ifjorZu ugÈ gksrk ftlls fojks/kh i{kdkj ij viwj.kh; çfrdwy çÒko iM+s & iwo¨Zä la'k¨èku eatwj djus dk vfèkdj.k dk vkns'k vfèkfu;e dh dY;k.kdkjh ;kstuk d¢ vuqlkj g¨us d¢ dkj.k xyr ugÈ & gLr{ksi vokafNrA fo'ks"k btktr ;kfpdk ¼flfoy½ Ø- 27621 lu~ 2019 fu.kÊr fnukad 13-2-2025 vuqlfjrA 2008 ,llhlh vkWuykbu fnYyh 626] 2014 ,llhlh vkWuykbu fnYyh 7523 rFkk çdh.kZ ;kfpdk Ø- 973 lu~ 2024 fu.kÊr fnukad 7-5-2024 voyafcrA ¼2004½ 5 ,llhlh 385 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 14 ,oa 15
¼2½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuq- 227 & O;kfIr & vfèkdj.k dk vkns'k fdlh lqLi"V voSèkrk ;k vfèkdkfjrk dh xyrh ls xzLr ugÈ & viuk;k x;k n`f"Vd¨.k ,d laÒo n`f"Vd¨.k gS & vuq- 227 d¢ vèkhu gLr{ksi fd, tkus dh vko';drk ugÈA ¼2010½ 8 ,llhlh 329 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 17
Legal Category Hierarchy
- tort
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Insurer opposed amendment as it would change nature of claim and was sought belatedly. (Para 3 )
3. Petition dismissed — Tribunal's order allowing conversion affirmed — No interference under Article 227. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
4. Can a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act be converted into one under Section 163A?
Yes, a claim petition under Section 166 can be converted into one under Section 163A, provided both remedies are not pursued simultaneously. (Para 10 , 11 , 14 )
5. At what stage can such conversion be permitted?
Such conversion can be permitted at any stage of the proceedings, including at the stage of final hearing, as there is no bar except against simultaneous pursuit. (Para 10 , 11 , 14 )
6. Is proof of negligence required under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act?
No, proof of negligence is not required under Section 163A; the claim is based on a structured formula without the need to establish fault. (Para 10 , 16 )
7. Does converting a claim from Section 166 to Section 163A change the nature of the proceedings?
No, such conversion does not by itself change the nature of proceedings in a manner causing irreparable prejudice, and it aligns with the welfare object of the Act. (Para 14 , 15 )
ORDER :
AMIT SETH, J.
1. The present miscellaneous petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the VIth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, in Case No. MACC/314/2021, whereby the application filed by the respondents No.1 to 5/claimants under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as "CPC"] read with Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as "MV Act"] seeking amendment in the claim application, has been allowed.
2 . The brief facts leading to filing of the present miscellaneous petition, as argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, are as under:
2.1. A claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act came to be filed by respondents No.1 to 5/claimants seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.44,00,000/- before the Tribunal on account of the death of Hazrat alias Karu, who died in a motor accident while travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.MP30-MQ-2922 on 13.12.2019. After the evidence of both the parties in the said claim, case was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments, and even after written arguments were filed by the petitioner, an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC read with Section 169 of the MV Act came to be filed by respondents No.1 to 5/claimants. It w a s inter alia contended therein that on account of an inadvertent typographical error, instead of mentioning the claim under Section 163 (a) of the MV Act, the claim has been mentioned under Section 166 of the MV Act. Similarly, it was further contended that instead of the income of the deceased mentioned in the claim on account of alleged typographical error, the same is required to be corrected to Rs.40,000/- per annum. The total compensation of Rs. 44,00,000/- also since mentioned due to an inadvertent typographical error be permitted to be deleted, and by treating the age of deceased as 26 years, and the annual income as Rs.40,000/- per annum, appropriate compensation be awarded.
2.2. A reply/objection to the said application was submitted by the petitioner herein, stating that at the very stage of filing of the claim application and upon appearance before the Tribunal, written statements were filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein the maintainability of the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the MV Act was objected on the ground that the accident which is stated to be occurred while travelling to a motorcycle on the negligence of the driver of the motorcycle was incorrect, as the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling was hit by a car and on the basis of the stand taken in the written statements, a specific issue in the said regard was also framed by the Tribunal.
2.3. Referring to the FIR lodged by the driver of the motorcycle, annexed as Annexure P/3 dated 13.12.2019, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the same indicates that the accident took place on account of a collision between the motorcycle and an unknown four-wheeler. He submits that evidence in terms of the pleadings contained in the claim petition was led by parties, including the claimants as well as the petitioner. It has throughout been the case of the petitioner that no case of negligence by the driver of the motorcycle in question is made out and therefore, the claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act filed by the claimants is not maintainable. The claimants contested the claim and pursued the same to the stage of final arguments. The final written arguments were submitted by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal on 22.09.2025. However, instead of submitting their arguments, the claimants filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC on 16.10.2025 seeking amendment of the claim petition and the same was illegally allowed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 17.11.2025.
2.4. Referring to the impugned order dated 17.11.2025, learned coun
