Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SUNIL THOMAS, J
GIRIJA – Appellant
Versus
SASI V.K – Respondent
OP (MAC) 23 2020
Motor Vehicles - Compensation Claims - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 140, 166, 163A - The court ruled that the conversion of a claim from Section 166 to Section 163A is permissible, emphasizing the beneficial nature of the legislation and aligning with precedents that support claimants' rights to compensation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, having previously filed a claim under Section 166 seeking compensation for a death, received compensation under Section 140 and later sought to convert their claim to Section 163A, which was initially dismissed by the tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no legal bar to convert the application, stating it is a beneficial legislation promoting substantial justice, and cited a Supreme Court decision that supports such conversions.
Issues: Whether the petitioners could convert their claim from Section 166 to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act after receiving compensation under Section 140.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of prohibition against converting claims as established in judicial precedents allows claimants to seek compensation under structured formulae despite earlier claims based on fault liability.
Final Decision: The Original Petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and remanded for further proceedings.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court emphasized that claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act can convert their applications from one section to another, specifically from Section 166 to Section 163A, without any legal prohibition, to promote access to appropriate compensation (!) (!) .
The legislation is considered beneficial and aimed at ensuring substantial justice, which supports the claimants' rights to seek compensation through structured formulae, regardless of prior claims based on fault liability (!) (!) .
The original claim was filed under Section 166 seeking compensation for a death, and after receiving some compensation under Section 140, the claimants sought to convert their application to Section 163A, which was initially dismissed by the tribunal (!) .
The court held that there is no legal bar to such conversion, provided it is done before issues are settled or trial is concluded, and that the conversion aligns with the legislative intent to facilitate just compensation (!) (!) .
The decision reaffirmed that the option to convert claims is available at any stage before the issues are settled, and that receiving compensation under Section 140 does not bar subsequent conversion to Section 163A (!) (!) .
The court set aside the tribunal's order dismissing the conversion application and remanded the matter for further proceedings, allowing the petitioners to amend their application and ensuring the respondent is given a reasonable opportunity to respond (!) .
The case underscores the importance of procedural flexibility under the Motor Vehicles Act to enable claimants to pursue fair compensation, emphasizing that procedural restrictions should not hinder access to justice when the legislation is meant to be beneficial (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this case.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 04th day of August, 2021 The petitioners are the claimants in OP(MV)
No.88/2009 pending before the Additional District Judge (MACT), Thrissur. The petitioner filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation in relation to the death of the predecessor of the petitioners. It seems that they received the compensation under Section 140 of . Thereafter, the Police filed charge sheet in the crime. On noticing that, it was adverse to the claims setup by the petitioner, they filed IA No.6850/2016 in OP(MV) No.88/2009, to convert the application to Section 163A of the . This was dismissed by the learned Tribunal by Ext.P1 order holding that sufficient reason was not shown.
2. Assailing this, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no legal bar in conversion of the application filed under Section 166 to Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . It was contended by the learned Counsel that, being a beneficial legislation and constituted for the purpose of enabling the claimants to get compensation in appropriate cases, the law has to lean in favour of substantial justice and the learned Tribunal ought not have dismissed the application. To substantiate his contention that there was no legal bar in so converting it to an application under Section 163(A), the learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court inOriental Insurance Company Vs. Dhanbaji Kanji Gadhvi [ 2011 (1) KLT 617 ), (SC)]. It was held by the Honourable Supreme Court that the object of Section 163A of the Act, which was inserted by Section 51 of Act 54 of 1994 and the non obstante clause with which sub section 1 of 163A commences, it was manifest that the legislature did not intend to prevent the claimant from getting compensation as per the structured formula, merely because in his original claim petition he had claimed compensation on the basis of fault liability principle. The Court concluded that there was no prohibition in any provision of the against the claimant praying for the compensation as per the structured formula after having filed a claim petition under of the Act. However, the respondents, if they have received the compensation, finally determined and settled under Section 163(A) of the Act are precluded from proceeding further with the petition filed under Section
166 of the Act.
3. Opposing the application, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company relied on the decision of the Single Bench of this Court inNational Insurance Company Vs. Jabbar [ 2007 (1) KLT 331 ] at paragraph 15, wherein it was held that the option to convert an application under Section 166 to Section
163(A), or conversely should be exercised at any time, however propriety demands that it should be done before settlement of issues. In this case, it was contended that the petitioners have obtained the compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. If that be so, it can be treated as a case wherein the parties have gone for trial and thereafter, the petitioners are not entitled to get the application converted, it was contended.
4. I do not agree with the above proposition, since the bar under the Act applies only when the issues were settled as a prelude to the Trial. Evidently, it has not reached that stage. Merely, because an application under Section 140 has been allowed, a beneficial statute to get interpretation as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court.
Accordingly, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order. In the result the Original Petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Court below. IA stands allowed. Carry out amendment and the court below shall grant reasonable opportunity to the respondent to file an additional written statement to the amended petition. Thereafter, the court shall proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE
APPENDIX OF OP (MAC) 23/2020 PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
E
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
