JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 15.05.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.144 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Adilabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners before the trial Court was that the deceased was proceeding on a motorcycle from New colony, Sirpur- T Pit Mohalla, along with relative Banda Diwakar and that when they reached near Nagamma Cheruvu, suddenly, one lorry bearing No.Ap-36-Y-2196 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased as a result of which the deceased fell down on the road and that the lorry ran over his head, resulting in death of the deceased on the spot. The wife and children of the deceased have filed a claim petition before the trial Court.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 3 who are the driver and owner of the lorry remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent Nos.3 and 4-Insurance Company filed counter denying the averments of the petition, the age, avocation, income of the deceased and also the manner in which the accident has occurred. They further contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the motor bike rider and that there was no negligence of the lorry driver.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:-

1. Whether the accident dated 28.02.2016 was due to the rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP-36-Y-2196 and the said accident resulted in the death of deceased Kosari Ashok or whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of deceased?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief ?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RW1 Was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is filed by the insurance company.

9. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Grandhi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in fixing the liability on the Insurance Company and that it has grossly committed an error by converting the application under Sections 166 to 163-A of the M.V Act and went ahead in awarding compensation, without there being any application by the claimants. Therefore, they prayed to set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal by allowing this appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that too technical approach in deciding the motor accident claims is not proper and that the Tribunal has rightly granted the compensation by treating the petition to be under Section 163-A because, it is a beneficial legislation. He therefore, prayed to uphold the order and decree passed by the trial Court.

12. Perused the record.

13. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:

“1) Whether the claim petition filed under Section 166 can be converted to that of Section 163-A of the M.V Act ? If so can the Tribunal do it suo-motu?

2) Whether the insurer of motor bike is a necessary party to the petitioners claim?

3) Whether the order and decree dated 15.05.2020 passed by the trial Court need any interference?

4) To what relief?”

14. POINT NO.1:

a) The main question that arises for consideration in this appeal is that whether the petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V.Act can be converted to that under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act.

b) Since, the main question revolves around Section 166 and Section 163-A of the M.V Act, the relevant provisions are extracted herein for the sake of refere