A claimant cannot convert a claim from Section 166 to Section 163A after claiming a higher income, as statutory provisions set clear boundaries and such conversions are not permissible post-filing.

JUDGMENT

The question involved in the present petition for adjudication by this Court is as to whether the claimant who filed a petition under Section 166 of the erstwhile Motor Vehicles Act , 1994 can be permitted to convert the same under Section 163A by truncating the income vis-à-vis the petition filed under of the Act.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners being the legal heirs of the deceased preferred O.P.(MV).No.1465/2013 in respect of an accident occurred on 23.02.2013 when the deceased riding a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL 7 AZ 2352 was hit by a bus bearing registration No.KL 45 6786. He at the time of death was a carpenter and aged 36 years. An application under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act was also filed for no-fault liability which was also received. The police filed a charge sheet in the crime noticing that it was adverse to the claims set up by the petitioner. Petitioner preferred an application for amending the claim under Section 163A . The said prayer has been rejected vide impugned order Ext.P1. It is contended that similar question was raised before this Court in O.P.(MAC).No.23/2020 to convert the claim petition under Section 166 (1) to one under Section 163(A) and by judgment dated 04.08.2021, the same was allowed.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book and am of the view that there is no force and merit.

4. The question of converting the petition under Section

166(1) to 163(A) came to be debated by Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2568/2001 and various appeals titled asThe Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hansrajbhai v. Kodala & Ors. When a compensation is payable under Section 163(A) as per the structured formula, the said remedy under Section 163(A) is an alternative remedy and 163(B) specifically bar the other remedies. The object is to expeditiously extend the social justice to the needy victims. As once the person has claimed the income more than what is prescribed under Section 163A cannot truncate the income by confining the claim to 163A. At the best they could have lead evidence in the petition filed under Section 166 and MACT would have able to decide the same on preponderance of the evidence. The judgment Ext.P1 dealt with an objection of the insurance company regarding the amendment of the petition only on the ground that the application can be filed only before the settlement of issue and not beyond that. I am in total agreement with the finding rendered by this Court as even after the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure 2002 in view of the catena of judgments, can be filed after settlement of issues.

5. The question again revolves whether a person who has claimed a particular figure on the basis of income which is more than the one carved out under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 amended in 1994 can be permitted to convert the same under Section 166 . For the reason aforementioned, it would be a farcical exercise for the trial court. The income shown in the petition under was Rs.10,000/- which is now being sought to be changed as Rs.3,250/-.

The order under challenge is perfectly legal and I do not find any illegality and perversity. Accordingly, OP is dismissed.