Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lakhan Puri vs Manoj Kumar Rao S/O Dashrath Singh ... on 7 May, 2024
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 7 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 973 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1. LAKHAN PURI S/O MAKHAN @ JAMNAPURI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE, R/O: WARD NO.8, MANDIRAPURA
SALSALAI, GRAM SALSALAI, DISTT. SHAJAPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DEVBAI W/O LAKHAN PURI, AGED ABOUT 45
YEARS, OCCUPATION: NONE, R/O: WARD NO.8,
MANDIRAPURA SALSALAI, GRAM SALSALAI,
DIST. SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(SHRI MANISH KUMAR VIJAYWARGIYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MANOJ KUMAR RAO S/O DASHRATH SINGH
(DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. RADHA GANWANTE
WD/O LATE MANOJ KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 31
YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL, R/O: GRAM MUDLAI,
THANA SALSALAI, TEHSIL GULANA, DISTT.
SHAJAPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED THROUGH SHAKHA PRABANDHAK 15TH
MANZIL TOWER A, PENNISULA BUSINESS PARK
GANPATRAO KHADAM MARG, OF SENAPATI
BAPAT MARG, LOWER PARLE, T.I. MALL 2
MANZIL, BUILDING NO.9/1 KHANDELWAL
MOTOR KE PEECHHE, M.G. ROAD, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI MANOJ JAIN - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2.)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANUSHREE
PANDEY
Signing time: 07-05-2024
18:53:57
2
ORDER
Respondent No.1 has remained ex parte before the trial Court, therefore,
no need to hear him. Counsel for both the parties heard.
2. Petitioners have preferred this petition under Article 227 of
Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the impugned order 29.01.2024
passed in MACC No.179/2021 by III Member, MACT, Shajapur, whereby an
application preferred under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC filed by the petitioners /
claimants has been dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was a collision
between two motorcycle and both the drivers of motorcycle have been died in
the instant case, therefore, it depends upon the claimants whether to proceed
their case under Section 166 or Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act. The below
Tribunal has not considered his application in its true perspective and dismissed
his petition on the basis of case of Jugal Kishore Vs. Ramlesh Devi 2004
ACJ 297, but no such law has been laid down in the said citation. Hence, the
impugned order passed by the below Tribunal is erroneous and against the law
and facts. Hence, it deserves to be set aside and application for amendment be
allowed.
4. Counsel for respondent No.2 opposes the prayer and prays for its
rejection.
5. Counsel for both the parties heard at length and perused the impugned
order.
6. The limited issue that arises in the present appeal is as to whether the
claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1958 can be
converted into claim petition under Section 164 of M.V. Act or not? In the
present case, the claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act
and the Delhi High Court in the case of United Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Rita Devi and Ors. judgment dated 05.12.2014 passed in MAC.APP
No.256/2007 has held as under:
"6. The question for consideration is whether the Claim
Petition filed and decided under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act can be converted into one under
Section 163-A so as to claim compensation without
proving any negligence on the part of the driver of the
vehicle involved in the accident. There is no prohibition
in law to convert the said petition unless some prejudice
is shown by the opposite party, in my view, a claim
petition filed under Section 166 can be converted to one
under Section 163-A of the Act."
7. As per the law laid down in Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of
Nagappa Vs. Gurdayal Singh and Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 274, the specific
provision of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is applicable in the proceedings pending
before the claims Tribunal and Court may permit amendment of claim petition.
The proposed amendment are necessary for proper adjudication of claim
petition and petitioners are entitled to amend his claim petition as per their
choice. There is no provision in law to convert the said provision unless some
prejudice is shown by the opponent party, therefore, on the basis of aforesaid,
this Court is of the considered opinion that claim petition filed under Section
166 of M.V. Act can be converted under Section 164 of M.V. Act.
8. In the light of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered
opinion that impugned order passed by below Tribunal is against the law and
facts and it deserves to be dismissed. Hence, this Misc. Petition is allowed and
the impugned order dated 29.01.2024 passed in MACC No.179/2021 by III
Member, MACT, Shajapur is hereby set aside. The application under Order VI
Rule 17 of CPC filed by the petitioners stands allowed. The below Tribunal is
directed to proceed further in accordance with law.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Anushree
