Civil Revision No.6469 of 2012(O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No.6469 of 2012(O&M)

DATE OF DECISION : November 09, 2012

The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

...Petitioner

Versus

Smt. Banto Bai and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL

Present

Mr. L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate

and Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

1) Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?

Yes

M.JEYAPAUL, J.

1.

The New India Assurance Company Limited, one of the

respondents before the Tribunal aggrieved by the order passed by

the Tribunal on 15.5.2012 permitting the alteration of the claim

petition from the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act

to one under Section 163-A of the said Act has preferred the present

Revision.

2.

The fact remains that the claimants having lost their

bread winner in the Motor Accident, presented a claim petition

invoking both the provisions under Sections 163A/166 of the Act way

back on 9.5.1996. The Tribunal chose to dismiss the claim petition by

its order dated 27.8.1999, the claimants aggrieved by the same

carried in appeal in FAO No. 376 of 2000 before this Court. This

Civil Revision No.6469 of 2012(O&M)

2

Court was pleased to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal and

remanded the case to the Tribunal vide order dated 15.5.2012 for

recording evidence to be led by the parties for arriving at a fresh

decision by the Tribunal. Some how the matter could not be taken up

for further evidence by the Tribunal. The fact remains that the matter

is pending before the Tribunal for leading evidence.

3.

At this stage, having been advised by the counsel

engaged by the claimants, they sought to convert the claim petition

which was filed originally under Sections 166/163A of the Act to one

under Section 163A of the Act.

4.

The Tribunal having relied upon the decision of this Court

in Ravinder and another versus Subhash Chand and others 2007

ACJ 1365 held that such an amendment sought for by the claimants

was sustainable and ultimately permitted the claimants to amend the

claim petition.

5.

The learned Senior counsel appearing for the New India

Assurance Company Limited would submit that after 17 long years

from the date of institution of the claim petition, an application for

amending the claim petition has been permitted by the Tribunal. It is

his further submission that the Tribunal had already rendered a

verdict dismissing the claim petition preferred by the claimants. Of

course, on remand the matter has been sent back to the Tribunal for

recording evidence but in as much as the Tribunal had already

rendered a verdict on exercise of the option by the claimants to

pursue the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, the question

of permitting the claimants at this distance in time to claim

Civil Revision No.6469 of 2012(O&M)

3

compensations under Section 163A of the Act does not arise for

consideration. Referring to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors. Versus United India

Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda JT 2004(4) SC 83 and the decision of

this Court in Vijender Singh versus Kailash Sharma and others

2008 ACJ 1093 he would submit that once the claimants have

elected their option to pursue their claim either under Section 163A or

under Section 166 of the Act, they cannot be permitted to amend the

claim petition later on. Therefore, it is his submission that the

impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to set aside.

6.

The provisions under Sections 163A and 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 have been made by the legislature to render

succor to the legal heirs or victims of accident. Therefore, on a

technical ground, the claimants who are seeking an award on the

demise of their family member or on sustaining injuries shall not be

sh