The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following

relief:

A. Issue a writ of certiorari by quashing the impugned

order dated 11-10-2021 on IA No.5 passed by Senior

Civil Judge Hukkeri in M.V.C.No.76 of 2013 as per

Annexure-D by issue of writ of certiorari or any other

suitable writ or order or directions and further allow

the IA No.5 filed by the petitioners.

B. Issue such other suitable order/s or directions as this

Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and

circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice

and equity

.

MVC No.76/2013 had been filed under Section 163A of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MV

Act, for brevity). After the stage of evidence was closed, the

petitioner filed I.A.No.5 for converting the petition from one

under Section 163A to that under Section 166 of the MV Act,

by way of an amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.

The said application having been objected to, came to be

dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the trial had

already been completed and this being a post trial

amendment, there is no due diligence on the part of the

petitioner satisfying the requirement of the proviso to Rule 17

- 4 -

of Order VI of CPC. It is aggrieved by the same that the

petitioner is before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the strict rule

of proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of CPC should not be made

applicable to the proceedings under the MV Act, since the

same is a beneficial legislation to make available

compensation to the aggrieved party. The claimant before

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ought to be given an

opportunity to convert the proceedings under Section 163A

to that under 166 of the MV Act, in order to be able to claim

compensation commensurate with the loss caused and in

this particular case, on account of the death of the son of the

petitioner.

Sri. N. R. Kuppelur, learned counsel for respondent No.7,

however, opposes the same on the ground that the petitioner

ought to have filed necessary proceedings under Section

166 instead of under Section 163A of the MV Act. Having

elected to file proceedings under Section 163A, they cannot

now after trial, be permitted to convert the same to one under

Section 166 of the MV Act. There is a vested right created in

- 5 -

favour of the Insurance Company, who is the respondent in

the said proceedings and as such, the nature of defence

would also undergo a change, the application has been

rightly rejected. Apart there from, he submits that there is

inordinate delay in filing of the application and the same is

filed after trial. Therefore he opposes grant of any relief in

the above petition and submits the petition is liable to be

dismissed.

Heard Sri. Shrinivas Nadamani, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Sri. N. R. Kuppelur, learned counsel for

respondent No.7 and perused the records.

The MV Act is a beneficial legislation to provide succor to an

aggrieved party either on account of injuries or on account of

death of a person in the family. Many a time proceedings are

filed under Section 163A of MV Act not knowing the

consequences thereof since the claimants are generally

uneducated, illiterate without any knowledge of law nor are

they able to receive any legal advice it is only after the

proceedings commences that they come to know about the

- 6 -

mistake committed and of the requirement to file proceedings

under Section 166 rather than 163A of MV Act.

I am of the considered opinion that the MV Act being a

beneficial legislation, the benefit under the said Act cannot

be deprived on technicalities. The strict rule of the proviso to

Rule 17 of Order VI cannot be applied to such cases that

Sri.N.R.Kuppelur wants to apply to it. I am further of the

opinion that a latitude has to be given to the petitioners who

having realized their mistake and want to convert the

proceedings under Section 163A to that under Section 166 of

MV Act. The trial Court having gone by strict rul