The court emphasizes the need for proper consideration of procedural amendments in claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

The claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1223 of 2018 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, has instituted this appeal, seeking to challenge the rejection of the claim petition by the impugned order dated 12.11.2021.

2. Smt.Radhika Anil, the learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the Tribunal went wrong in rejecting the claim petition without noticing the amendment to the petition, carried out as evidenced by Annexure A2 order dated 25.06.2020. It is her submission that, though the original claim petition was filed with reference to the provisions of 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, subsequently, the claimant had sought for an amendment under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure ,1908 for amending the provision to 163(A) of the ,1988 which stood allowed by Annexure A2 order. 3. Smt.Jesna K., on behalf of the 1^st respondent, owner of the vehicle, as well as Sri.V.P.K.Panicker, on behalf of the Insurance Company, also made submissions with respect to the afore contention. According to Sri.Panicker, the order at Annexure A2 dated 25.06.2020, cannot be sustained, insofar as the impugned order at Annexure A2 has been issued without serving notice with reference to the prayer for amendment of pleadings on the counsel for Insurance Company before the Tribunal. He would invite the attention of this Court to the endorsement made on I.A.No.1 of 2020 filed in O.P. (M.V) No.1223 of 2018 before the Tribunal.

4. I have considered the rival contentions as well as the connected records.

5. The contentions raised by the appellant, with reference to the order at Annexure A2, does not appear to have been specifically considered by the Tribunal while issuing the impugned order. In the light of Annexure A2 order, I am of the opinion that the matter requires a revisit at the hands of the MACT.

6. At the same time, I notice that on the interlocutory application which led to the order at Annexure A2, there is only a reference to the name of the counsel representing the Insurance Company before the Tribunal. Therefore, when the matter is being re-considered by the Tribunal, it is for the Tribunal to verify whether the notice with reference to I.A. No.1 of 2020 was, in fact, served on the counsel for the Insurance Company. If the notice as above is not served, it is for the Tribunal to consider I.A.

No.1 of 2020 afresh, after granting the Insurance Company, an opportunity to file objections in the matter, since the very entitlement of the claimant for seeking amendment as sought for in Annexure A1 application requires to be considered in the light of the objections, if any to be filed, by the 3^rd respondent in the matter. Such a course of action is being adopted only because of the rejection of the claim petition by the Tribunal, on account of which the 3^rd respondent is not in a position to challenge Annexure A2 order.

In the result, this appeal would stand allowed, remitting the matter for fresh consideration by the Tribunal, subject to the observations made as above. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 12.02.2026.

Sd/-