A claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, being an independent and absolute social security scheme based on a structured formula, cannot be converted into a fault-based claim petition under Section 166 of the Act.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-1611-CII-2016

This is an application filed by the appellant under Section 151 CPC for converting the Claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to that under Section 166 of the Act and to decide the claim of the appellants accordingly.

It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the applicants/appellants that claim petitions filed under Section 166 of the Act by the other claimants arising out of the same accident dated 01.09.2009, have been allowed and huge amount of compensation has been awarded to the claimants therein. It is submitted that the factum of negligence in the accident has been proved on record in the other matters. Therefore, the present petition of the present appellants arising out of the same accident also deserves to be treated and decided under Section 166 of the Act. Therefore, it would meet the ends of justice if the petition filed by the applicants under Section 163-A is converted into petition under Section 166.

Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants/appellants and submits that the appellants cannot seek to take benefit of the other connected cases as each case has independent cause of action. It is submitted that even as per the law, conversion of Claim Petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act to a petition under Section 166 of the Act is not permitted. It is accordingly prayed that the present application be dismissed.

Heard.

I find merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondents.

In a Claim Petition filed under Section 163-A of the Act, the compensation has to be paid as per the structured formula stipulated in the Second Schedule to the Act. In a Claim Petition under Section 163-A of the Act, the claimants are only required to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident in question. Accordingly, all the evidence is led by the parties to only prove the involvement of the vehicle. Whereas, in a claim petition filed under section 166, evidence is to be led by the claimant to prove the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent. In the present case, admittedly claimants have not led any evidence to show that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Reliance of the applicants upon the connected matters is misplaced as, as correctly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents, each case has independent cause of action and facts of each case are different. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in three-Judge Bench judgment of Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (SC) : Law Finder Doc ID # 70466, has categorically held that:-

“Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 163A and 166 - Alternate remedy - Switching over to Section 166 after exercising one under section 163A - Not permissible - Remedy under the no fault liability prescribed under Section 163A is an independent and complete in itself - It is not an interim relief or temporary remedy subject to any other relief under the Act and cannot be clubbed or adjusted in the remedy to claim under section 166 - It is only the relief under section 144 which is interim in nature and is adjustable at the time of final decision of regular petition - The object and purpose of incorporating Section 163A was to provide a speedy remedy to the victims or their dependents but has been made final and absolute in itself.

XXX XXX XXX

35. Section 163A was introduced in the Act by way of a social security scheme. It is a code by itself. It appears from the Objects and Reasons of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 that after enactment of the 1988 Act several representations and suggestions were made from the State Governments, transport operators and members of public in relation to certain provisions thereof. Taking note of the observations made by the various Courts and the difficulties experi