IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2076-2010 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 23.02.2026 Gyanwati and others .… Appellants Versus Anil Kumar and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - None for the applicant-appellants.

Mr. Sahej Mahajan, Advocate for Mr. RK Bashamboo, Advocate for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

CM-10247-CII-2025 By way of filing the present application under Order VI Rule

17 read with Section 151 CPC, the applicant/appellant-claimants are seeking permission to amend the appeal to the limited extent for converting the claim petition filed under Section 163-A to a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short-‘the Act’).

At the very outset, learned counsel for the non-

applicant/respondent No. 3-Insurance Company vehemently opposes the said prayer of the applicant-claimants and refers to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another vs. Baldev Kumar Nayyer and others, Law Finder Doc Id #

120930, wherein in para Nos. 3 and 4, it is held as under:-

“3. On the last date of hearing, counsel for the appellant had placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Deepal Girish Bhai Soni and others v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., 2004(2) RCR (Civil) 466 : (2004-2) 137 P.I.R. 271 (S.C.) to contend that in view of the claim of the claimants themselves that the income of the deceased/injured was more then Rs.40,000/- per annum, the Tribunal was not justified in treating the petitions to be petitioners under Section 163A of the Act and awarding compensation without going into the question of negligence. Counsel for the claimant-respondents had sought time to go through the said judgment. He has not been able to refer to any other subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court taking a contrary view.

4. In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that the impugned award dated 6.11.2003 cannot be sustained. The Tribunal could not have treated the petitions filed under Section 166 of the Act as petitions under Section 163A of the Act by restricting the income of Rs.40,000/-. This issue stands settled by the Apex Court in Deepal Girish’s case (supra). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned award dated 6.11.2003 and direct the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula to decide the petition filed under Section 166 f the Act in accordance with law.”

Learned counsel for non-applicant/respondent No. 3 submits that therefore, as per the above pronouncement of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act cannot be converted to a petition under Section 166 of the Act.

In view of the above noted facts, the present application is dismissed.

FAO-2076-2010 The appellant-claimants have approached this Court laying challenge to the impugned Award dated 24.08.2009, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind, whereby their claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act was dismissed being not maintainable, on the finding that the income of the deceased was more than ₹40,000/- per annum.

There is no representation on behalf of the appellant-

claimants despite the case having been called twice. The present appeal being of the year 2010; and in view of the clear legal position, is being disposed of in the absence of learned counsel for the appellants.

Keeping in view the afore-noted order of even date passed by this cournt dismissing the application bearing No. CM-10247-CII-2025 filed by the appellant-claimants for conversion of the claim petition under Section 163-A to Section 166 of the Act, the main appeal is also dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

23.02.2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA )

rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No