Delhi High Court
Smt.Gaytri & Ors. vs Sh.Amir Singh & Ors. on 26 March, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 20th March, 2012
Pronounced on: 26th March, 2012
+ CM.(M). 1405/2011
SMT.GAYTRI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate
versus
SH.AMIR SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for
R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The Petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 10.10.2011,
whereby the Petitioners‟ application for converting a petition
under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act
(hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) to one under Section 163-A
of the Act, was dismissed on the ground that in the original
claim petition the Petitioners claimed the deceased‟s income to
be ` 9,000/- per month, which is now claimed to be ` 40,000/-
per annum. The Claims Tribunal opined that in the absence of
any reason for this reduction, the same cannot be accepted.
Consequently, it dismissed the application.
2. It may be mentioned that while claiming compensation a person
having more income than ` 40,000/- can avail Section 163-A of
the Act by restricting his income to ` 40,000/- per annum.
Otherwise also, falsity or truthness of the averments made is not
to be seen at the time of allowing the amendment or conversion
of a petition from under Section 166 of the Act to the one under
Section 163-A of the Act.
3. The question of conversion of a Petition under Section 163-A of
the Act into one under Section 166 of the Act came up before
the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) in New India
Assurance Company Limited v. Ashabai Kalyan Kothi & Ors.
2009 ACJ 163, where it was held as under:-
"15. The Tribunal as well as this Court always has a
power to allow the conversion of a claim petition under
Section 163-A into a claim petition under Section 166 of
the said Act. The procedure is always a handmaid of
justice. We are dealing with a beneficial legislation
which provides for payment of compensation to the legal
representatives of the victims of an accident involving a
motor vehicle. The power of the Tribunal or this Court to
allow conversion of the claim petition is discretionary.
While exercising the discretion of allowing conversion,
no doubt, the conduct of the claimants will be relevant. In
a given cases, such as the case before the Division Bench
in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v.
Rukhminibai Ashok Gore, FA No.1349 of 2004; decided
on 2.3.2007, the Court can refuse to exercise the
discretion. In the present case, the conduct of the
claimants is not such that the discretion should not be
exercised in their favour. The claim petition was filed
through an Advocate after setting out a specific case that
income of the deceased was Rs.4000/- p.m. The said
stand was reiterated by the first respondent No.1 in the
Affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. It cannot be said
that the action of invoking Section 163-A was deliberate.
The claimants have obviously acted as per legal advice.
In my view this is a case where the claim petition under
Section 163-A should be allowed to be converted into a
petition under Section 166 of the said Act."
4. This Court in the case of Rukmani Devi v. New India Assurance
Company Limited & Anr., 2009 ACJ 2202 held that the
provision for award of compensation under the Motor Vehicles
Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and, therefore, an
endeavor has to be made to see as to how best the intention of
legislation can be achieved so as to safeguard the interest of the
victims of the accident. In para 14 it was held as under:-
"14. Another question which is of the vital importance is
whether the petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act or visa-versa can be allowed to be
converted into a petition under Section 163-A of the
Motor Vehicles Act and if the answer is yes, then what
should be the stage for allowing such a petition. There
cannot be any dispute that Motor Vehicles Act is a
beneficial piece of legislation and therefore, endeavour
has to be as to how best the intention of the legislation
can be achieved so as to safeguard the interest of the
victims of the accident rather than defeating the same.
The statute has to be construed according to the intent of
the makers and it is the duty of the courts to interpret the
statute to see that true intention of legislature is
achieved. Taking a purposive interpretation of Section
163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act the clear intendment of
the legislation was to come to the rescue of all those who
in the absence of an evidence are not in a position to file
a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act where death of the victim or permanent disablement
of the victim is required to be proved by establishing the
factum of negligence involving the offending vehicle
resulting in to causing the accident but under Section
163-A, the requirement of proving the negligence has
been dispensed with."
5. The Claims Tribunal fell into error in declining the application
for conversion. The impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. The Petition is accordingly allowed.
7. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on
21st May, 2012, which is the date fixed in the petition.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
MARCH 26, 2012
RS
