1. The appeals in MFA Nos. 23128 / 2013 and 23127/23013 are filed by the appellant, namely, Renuka against the judgment and award dated 29.11.2012, passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court - IV, Belgaum (for short 'the Tribunal').

2. The facts leading up to filing of the present appeals briefly stated are that on 7.4.2009, the deceased Bhoomi and Babita, the daughters of Basawanni Bhimappa Harijan and the appellant herein, were proceeding towards Mapusa Goa from Hudali along with their relative in a Maruti Alto car bearing registration No. GA 03 - C 5239 driven by father, Basawanni Bhimappa Harijan. When they came near Chandgad on Belgaum - Vengurla Road at about 2.30 p.m., the driver of the car lost control over the vehicle and dashed to a roadside tree. Due to the impact, the deceased and their father who was driving the car sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same.

3. Thereupon the appellant / petitioner being the mother of the aforesaid Bhoomi and Babita filed claim petitions under S.163 - A of the MV Act claiming compensation in a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 in respect of the deceased Bhoomi in MVC No. 1299/2012 and a sum of Rs. 20,00,000 in respect of the deceased Babita in MVC No. 1300/2012.

4. It is contended that the deceased Babita was a B.Com graduate, was earning a sum of Rs. 5,000 per month and was contributing the same for the welfare of the family. Respondent No. 2 - insurance company contended that the aforesaid two claim petitions were not maintainable as the insured was the father of the deceased Bhoomi and Babita and the husband of the petitioner, as such the insured cannot be indemnified for his own fault and sought dismissal of the petitions.

5. The Tribunal based on the pleadings framed issues, recorded evidence and held that the death of the deceased Bhoomi and Babita was on account of road accident involving the Maruti Alto car and awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000 each in respect of the claim made by the appellant in MVC Nos. 1299/2012 and 1300/2012. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present appeals are filed seeking enhancement of compensation.

6. The appellant in both the appeals has filed applications in IA No. 1/2021 under O.6, R.17 read with S.151 of CPC seeking to amend / correct / convert the provisions of the claim petitions from the one under S.163 - A to S.166 of the MV Act. In support of the applications, it is contended that though the provision mentioned in the claim petitions is S.163 - A of the MV Act, the income of the deceased claimed in the claim petitions is in excess of Rs. 40,000 per annum as prescribed under S.163 - A of the MV Act. It is further submitted that though the provision of law mentioned in the claim petitions was S.163 - A of the MV Act however the matters were conducted as per provision of S.166 of the MV Act and the Tribunal has also appreciated the materials, pleadings and evidence as if the same have been filed under S.166 of the MV Act. That at the stage of appeals, the insurance company has raised objections that since the claim petitions were filed under S.163 - A of the MV Act, the enhancement of compensation cannot be granted. It is further deposed that the petitioner had proved negligence in the accident as required under S.166 of the MV Act and as such, it was necessary and imperative to amend the claim petitions and to insert / substitute the provision in the claim petitions as S.166 of the MV Act in place of S.163 - A of the Mv Act.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of the aforesaid application has relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this court in the case of Guruanna Vadi v. General Manager, Karnataka State Road Trans. Corpn., 2001 ACJ 1528 (Karnataka).

8. Learned counsel for respondent insurance company filed statement of objections vehemently opposing the applications filed for amendment. He submitted that the amendment to the petitions would change the nature and cause of action of the petitions and that the amendm