Gujarat High Court
L And T General Insurance Company ... vs Anubhai Sanjaybhai Singh on 14 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/16833/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16833 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
=============================================
L AND T GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
ANUBHAI SANJAYBHAI SINGH & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NAGESH C SOOD(1928) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Respondent(s) No.
7.1,7.2,7.3,7.4
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5
RULE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
=============================================
CORA HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
M:
Date : 14/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 163- A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1988"), at the instance of the Insurance Company praying for appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the order dated 4.8.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi) Mahuva below Exh. 60 and 61 in MACP No.48 of 2017. The petitioner Insurance Company has also prayed for direction seeking stay against the further proceedings of the aforesaid claim petition, pending before the Tribunal, till the final disposal of the Page 1 of 21 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 00:17:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16833/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined present petition.
2. In order to appreciate the controversy raised in the present petition, it would be appropriate to look into the factual background of the case:
2.1. On 13.4.2013, the accident took place between three vehicles which involved one Truck bearing Registration N.GJ-
6-VV-5312, Tempo bearing Registration No.MH-46-F-1941 and Luxury Bus bearing Registration No.GJ-14-V-5130. In the aforesaid accident, the driver of the Luxury bus viz. Prabhatgiri Ishwargiri sustained fatal injuries. On 14.6.2013 the legal heirs of deceased Prabhatgiri Ishwargiri preferred claim petition under Section 163 A of the Act, 1988 praying for compensation to tune of Rs.6 lakhs before the claim petition at Bhavnagar. On 10.09.2014, the Tribunal was pleased to partly allowed the aforesaid claim petition thereby awarding compensation of Rs.4,09,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% pa in favour of original claimants. The opponents were held jointly and severally liable to pay such aforesaid amount of compensation to the claimants. The petitioner - original opponent no.7- Insurance Company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid direction approached in appeal before this Court under Section 173 of the Act, 1988. The said appeal preferred by the petitioner - Insurance Company was registered as First Appeal No.505 of 2016. This Court upon appreciation of the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant- Insurance Company in Civil Application No.2506 of 2015 had issued Rule vide order Page 2 of 21 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 00:17:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16833/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined dated 25.3.2015 which was made returnable on 10.04.2015. Pending the aforesaid proceedings, the New India Assurance Company Limited had under protest deposited an amount of Rs. 3,21,762/- qua their liability on 21.08.2015 before the concerned Tribunal. On 11.11.2014 - New India Assurance Company Limited - insurer of Luxury Bus had deposited an amount of Rs.1,69,241/- with the concerned Tribunal. The claimants have also sought execution of the impugned judgment and award, which was registered as Execution Petition No.207 of 2014.
2.2. The claimants upon deposit of the aforesaid amount withdraw the entire amount inasmuch as the learned Tribunal directed to pay 30% of the amount by cheque whereas remaining 70% of the amount was directed to be invested in the fixed deposit scheme with any nationalized bank.
2.3. The claimants being served in the pending First Appeal preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company, choose not to appear and contest the appeal and hence this Court vide order dated 12.09.2015 was pleased to quash and set aside the judgment rendered in MACP No.257 of 2013 and remanded the original claim petition for fresh hearing. The petition was restored to original file, however subsequently because of the change of jurisdiction, the claim petition was transferred from the Tribunal at Bhavnagar to Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahuva and was renumbered as MACP No.48 of 2017.
Page 3 of 21 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 00:17:11 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16833/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined 2.4. The claimants on 28.11.2017 moved an application at Exh. 60 seeking permission of the Tribunal to convert the original claim petition filed under Section 163 A of the Act, 1988 to a petition under Section 166 of the Act, 1988. The claimants also simultaneously moved application at Exh.61 seeking permission of the Tribunal to amend the amount of compensation from Rs.6 lakhs to Rs.25 lakhs. The petitioner - Insurance Company has strongly objected to the aforesaid application by submitting their reply at Exh.63 on 12.12.2017. However, the Tribunal after considering the submission made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, by impugned order dated 4.8.2018 has allowed the aforesaid application preferred at Exh.60 and 61 by the claimant by common order thereby allowing the claimants to convert the claim petition from Section 163 A to Section 166 of the Act, 1988 as well as amendment of the amount of compensation from Rs. 6 lakhs to Rs.25 lakhs. Hence, present petition at the instance of the petitioner - Insurance Company.
3. This Court upon considering the submission made by the learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati , appearing on behalf of the petitioner vide order dated 1.11.2018, was pleased to issue notice as well as notice as to interim relief, which was made returnable on 14.12.2018. Pending this petition, the learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi has entered his appearance on behalf of the respondents- original claimants. Mr. Ajay Mehta, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.6- Insurance Company. Notice issued by this Court upon the rest of the respondents though served has Page 4 of 21 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 00:17:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16833/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined chosen not to appear and contest the present petition. This Court upon hearing learned advocates for the respective parties, by order dated 13.09.2019 has admitted the petition and by interim relief has stayed the impugned common order dated 4.8.2018 passed below application at Exhs. 60 & 61, pending this petition.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner, at the outset, has invited my attention to the aforesaid list of events and assailing the impugned order, has submitted that the Tribunal has acted in arbitrary manner against settled legal position of law. It was submitted that the issue raised for consideration is no more res-integra and is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Dhanbai Kanji Gadhvi and ors reported in (2011) 11 SCC 513. While referring to para 11 of the aforesaid decision, he has submitted that the proposition of law, which emerges from the aforesaid decision while relying upon the earlier decision in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors vs. United India Insurance Company Limited reported in 2004(2) GLH 180, is that the remedy for payment of compensation both under Section 163 A and 166 being final and independent to each other as statutorily provided, a claimant cannot be permitted to pursue this remedy simultaneously. It was submitted that the Court has explained that claimants can either opt to go for proceedings under Section 163 A or under Section 166 of the Act, 1988, but not under both. He has further pointed out the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal and has Page 5 of 21 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 00:17:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16833/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the correct import of Act as well as provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He has further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered the basic principles like prejudice and injustice which is likely to be caused to the Insurance Company before allowing such application. According to him, allowing amendments would fundamentally change the nature of proceedings. The attention of this Court was invited to the fact that having realized the amount of compensation under Section 163 A of the Act, 1988 and the remand order being made at the instance of the petitioner company, the Tribunal ought to have confined its jurisdiction to the proceedings initiated under Section 163 A of the Act. The attention of this Court was invited to the fact that almost after a period of five years from the date of filing of original claim petition and four years from the date of filing of execution proceedings, the Tribunal ought not to have entertained the application seeking amendment of the claim petition from Rs.6 lakhs to Rs.25 lakhs. According to him, no plausible explanation has been given by the claimants while seeking such amendment and prayer clause from compensation of Rs.6 lakhs to Rs.25 lakhs. He has therefore submitted that the Tribunal committed serious jurisdictional error and illegality, which calls for interference of this Court in the supervisory writ jurisdiction. He has therefore prayed that the order passed below Exhs. 60 and 61 may be quashed and set aside and appropriate direction may be issued to the Tribunal to proceed under Section 163 A of the Act.
Page 6 of 21 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 00:17:11 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16833/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined
5. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondents - original claimants forcefully argued that the Tribunal has rightly entertained the application preferred by the claimants. According to him, the Tribunal has assigned valid and substantive reasons while entertaining such an application which calls for no interference of this Court in the supervisory writ jurisdiction. He has further submitted that no prejudice is likely to be caused to any of the party if the petition is permitted to be converted from Section 163 A to Section 166 of the Act, 1988 as according to him ultimately the whole purpose is to provide just and fair compensation after examining the merits of the case. He has further submitted that in fact the burden would be upon the claimants to prove their case under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 to seek just and proper compensation and therefore, it would be for the claimants to pursue the Tribunal for a higher amount of compensation. The attention of this Court was invited to the fact that two insurance companies of the vehicle involved in the accident have not challenged the aforesaid impugned order. He has therefore urged this Court that present petition may not be entertained at the instance of the third Insurance Company especially in writ jurisdiction. The reliance was placed upon the direction issued by this Court while dismissing the First Appeal. It was submitted that the original judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in MACP No.257 of 2013 has been quashed and set aside.
5.1. This Court has further directed the Tribunal to extend the opportunity to the respective parties from filing written Page 7 of 21 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 00:17:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16833/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined statement till leading of evidence and extending hearing. Even the defences were permitted to be raised against the claim petition and appropriate directions were issued to thereafter rendered the judgment. Thus, according to him, the claim petition is directed to be decided afresh on its own merits. The appropriate direction are also issued by this Court with regard to amount deposited by the petitioner Insurance Company which was lying idle before the Tribunal. Thus, the award being quashed and set aside and the amount deposited with the Tribunal was made subject to outcome of the petition, it is open for the claimant to file any application to get more compensation. As regards the legal position of conversion of claim petition from Section 163 A to Section 166 of the Act is concerned, learned advocate has placed reliance upon the provision of the Act of 1988 to contend that there is no specific provision which bars such conversion of the claim petition from Section 163 A to Section 166 of the Act, 1988. According to him, at any stage such conversion is permissible in absence of any bar provided under the Act. The reliance was placed on the recent pronouncement of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Govindbhai Chhaganbhai Bhil (Rana) Father of deceased vs. Dilawarkhan Sahebkhan Baloch rendered in First Appeal No.845 of 2023 dated 29.08.2023, whereby, the learned Judge has permitted the conversion by remitting the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the same at appellate stage. The directions have been issued to treat it a petition under Section 166 of the Act,1988 by extending due opportunities to the respective parties in accordance with law. The attention of this Court was also Page 8 of 21 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 00:17:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16833/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined invited to the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Mukeshbhai Bhalchandrabhai Jani deceased Through Heirs Ranjan reported in 2004(1) GLH 246 wherein, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held that the Tribunal is duty bound to consider the application preferred by the claimants seeking amendment of claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 and the claimant can exercise option to accept the award under Section 163 A as final and withdrew the claim petition filed under Section
166. Thus, the claimants can exercise the option to choose between the two provisions to claim compensation at any stage of the proceedings including appellate stage by moving an amendment application. The only requirement is fulfillment of other conditions like income factor etc. and any other bar provided under the Act while exercising such an option. The Division Bench had relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Guruanna Vadi and Another vs. General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and another reported in 2001 ACJ 1528. Apart from the aforesaid decisions, learned advocate has also placed reliance upon the following decision:
(1). Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Sunita and Others reported in 2019 ACJ 109. (2). Unreported decision of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No.3612 of 2019 dated 19.06.2019. (3). Narshiji Negaji Majirana vs. Mangilal Amturam Bishnoi and others reported in 2005 ACJ 19.
5.2. Learned advocate has further dealt with the judgment Page 9 of 21 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 00:17:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16833/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined relied upon the learned advocate for the petitioner- Insurance Company in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors (supra). It was pointed out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision was called upon to examine the maintainability issue mainly on the ground that the claimants cannot be permitted to pursue simultaneously both the remedy under Section 163 A and 166 of the Act, 1988. He therefore contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not considered the issue of conversion of petition from Section 163 A to Section 166 of the Act or otherwise. He has further pointed out that in the present case if the conversion is permissible and the compensation awarded under Section 163 A is realized, the same would be set off against any final judgment and award being passed by the learned Tribunal. He has therefore submitted that the present case is not of dual compensation to be realized by the claimants. As regards the submission made by the learned advocate for the appellant that claimant has already received the amount under Section 163 A and after award he should not be allowed the conversion. He has submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal has been quashed and set aside in the appeal preferred at the instance of the appellant Insurance Company and consequently directions issued between the parties in the said appeal governs the pending proceedings. Therefore, since the award is quashed and set aside and the amount is made subject to the outcome of the petition, it is always open for the claimant to move appropriate application which is beneficial to them to get adequate compensation. Lastly, learned advocate has submitted that the original claim Page 10 of 21 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 00:17:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16833/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined petition was filed seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.6 lakhs considering the income at Rs.40,000/- p.a. and now claimant intends to seek enhance amount of compensation by seeking conversion of petition under Section 166 of the Act for a claim of an amount of Rs.25 lakhs. Though, it is argued that the aforesaid conversion being not permissible and the claim petition being not maintainable, learned advocate has submitted that proceedings under Section 163 A is a summary proceedings wherein compensation is awarded on structure base formula whereas Section 166, the heavy burden would be on the claimant to establish their case which would be subject matter of proof of income and evidence. He has therefore submitted that looking to the object of legislation, if the claimant is entitled to get just and proper compensation then there is no harm in entertaining the aforesaid prayer and has urged this Court to dismiss the present petition.
6. Heard learned advocates for respective parties and considered their submissions in light of the legal principles relied upon by them. The challenge by the Insurance company is essentially based on the legal principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Deepal Soni (supra) and Dhanbai Kani Gadhavi (supra).
6.1. On careful consideration of the judgment in the case of Deepal Soni (supra), a reference to a Larger Bench was decided. The Court was faced with a situation where two simultaneous petitions were filed, one under Section 163A and the second under Section 166 of the given Act. The Tribunal Page 11 of 21 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 00:17:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16833/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined as well as the High Court concluded that the petition under Section 163A is only for interim compensation and the petition under Section 166 of the 1988 Act can continue even after the decision in a petition under Section 163A. After comparing the provisions of Section 140 and 163A, the Court held that simultaneous remedy under Section 163A and 166 is not maintainable. While answering the aforesaid question, the Court has made an observation that switching to a remedy under Section 166 after filing a claim petition under Section 163A is not permissible. It is evident that in Deepal Girishbhai Soni's case (supra) the Supreme Court was not considering the issue of amendment of the petition filed under Section 163A in order to convert it to the one under Section 166. Careful reading of paragraphs 59 and 60 of this judgement indicates that the ratio therein is directed to the situation where a claim under section 166 of the Act of 1988 has been finally adjudicated against the claimant and having been so decided, the claimant thereafter seeks to invoke the beneficial provision of the structured formula under section 163A of the Act of 1988. Thus, where a tribunal has finally negated the claimant's case on merits under section 166, the claimant cannot thereafter turn around and seek the arguably more beneficial remedy under section 163A. The judgement does not lay down a corresponding reciprocal rule that in a case where award under section 163A, even when subsequently set aside, will automatically preclude a claimant from pursuing afresh adjudication under section 166 of the Act.
6.2. In the case of Dhanbai Kanji Gadhvi (Supra), the Page 12 of 21 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 00:17:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16833/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined honourable Supreme Court followed the earlier judgement in the case of Deepal Soni (supra) by holding that once compensation is finally determined and received under section 163A, the claimant cannot thereafter continue proceedings under section 166. However, aforesaid legal principles would not be applicable to the present case for the reasons that in the said cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where compensation under section 163 A was finally adjudicated and had attained finality. Whereas, in the present case, the award passed under section 163 A has been subsequently set aside in appeal and therefore, there is no ' final determination' of the award as on date. Even the amount withdrawn by the claimants from the earlier award has been clarified to be subject to the outcome of the proceedings by way of specific judicial directions. Therefore, the bar contemplated in aforesaid decisions would not be factually and legally applicable to the facts of the present case; as it is not a case where the claimants have attempted to realise compensation by availing dual remedy, but in fact, after the remand order, a fresh adjudication is directed by the appellate court.
6.3. In this case, indisputably , originally the petition was filed under Section 163A of the 1988 Act. The award was challenged in appeal at the instance of Insurance company which was set aside and matter was remanded back for a fresh consideration. It is at this stage after remand, the petitioner in order to seek just and fair compensation, has sought for conversion of claim petition from section 163A to Page 13 of 21 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 00:17:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16833/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined section 166 of the Act, 1988. In the absence of any specific bar or prohibition or restriction, it would not be appropriate to hold that there is an absolute bar on switching the provisions of application. The amendment of pleadings is a well known concept and in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, it would not be appropriate to hold that the Tribunal or the Court has no power to permit the parties to amend the petition.
6.4. At this stage, it would be appropriate to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently on 13.02.2025, VALSAMMA CHACKO & ANR v. M.A. TITTO & ORS., SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 27621 OF 2019 referred its earlier decision relating to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, Deepal Girishbhai Soni (supra), to a larger bench for reconsideration holding that where no case is made out for awarding compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants cannot file their claim under Section 163A of the Act.The Court considered the benevolent nature of the provisions Section 163A and observed that in cases where no claim is made under Section 166, the Tribunal should give an opportunity to the claimants to convert their claim under Section 163A, even if not sought voluntarily by them. The Court finds it a difficult proposition in law to be accepted; especially given the beneficial nature of the provision which is also one incorporated, notwithstanding the other provisions of the Act or any other law in force.
7. On the other hand the legal position, as regards switching Page 14 of 21 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 00:17:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16833/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined from a petition from 163A to section 166 and vis-a-vis, appropriate would be to consider a Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Guruanna Vadi and Another v. General Manager, Karnataka State Road Trans. Corpn. and Another, 2001 ACJ 1528, the Court held that an application for permission to amend the claim petition in order to switch to petition under Section 163A from the claim petition under Section 166 is permissible, by observing as under:-
"Question No.6:
36. The only bar provided for exercising an option in the matter of filing a claim petition for compensation is to be found in Section 163B which states, 'where a person is entitled to claim compensation under Section 140 and Section 163A, he shall file the claim under either of the said Sections and not under both.' There is no prohibition in any other provision of the Act from switching over the Claim made under Section 166 to 163-A provided the accident took place on 14-10-
1994 or thereafter because Section 163A came on the statute book only with effect from 14-10-1994, subject of course, to the claimants satisfying other requirements such as the outer income limit mentioned in the Second Schedule. Section 163 is a beneficial Legislation and provides for payment of compensation based on structured formula without requiring pleading or establishing that the death or permanent disability in respect of which the Claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or negligence or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or any other person. Such a beneficial legislation has to be given a liberal interpretation. Therefore we answer this question in the affirmative by holding that a claimant can move the Court for amendment of his claim petition filed under Section 166 to that of a petition under Section 163A at any stage of the proceedings and it Page 15 of 21 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 00:17:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16833/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined would be for the concerned Court to pass an order on that application in according with law."
8. Similarly, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Mukeshbhai Bhalachandrabhai Jani (Deceased) through heirs Ranjanben and Others reported in 2004 ACJ 1533 again deliberated on the aforesaid issue and held as under:-
"7. In view of the above decisions, it is clear beyond any manner of doubt that the claimant who is having three statutory remedies available, (i) under Section 166, (ii) under Section 140, and (iii) under Section 163-A of the Act can exercise any of the said remedies. The Tribunal is duty bound to consider the application. As far as the case on hand is concerned, the claimants are justified in withdrawing the original application filed under Section 166 of the Act and praying for the award under Section 163-A of the Act. In taking this view, we are also supported by the decisions of the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Guruanna Vadi v.
General Manager, Karnataka State Road Trans.Corpn., 2001 ACJ 1528 (Karnataka). It is held in the said decision that the claimant can move the Court for amendment of his claim petition filed under Section 166 to that of a petition under Section 163-A at any stage of the proceedings and it would be for the concerned Court to pass an order on that application in accordance with law, provided he satisfies other conditions such as the income factor etc. and the only bar provided for exercising an option in the matter of filing a claim petition for compensation is to be found in Section 163-B which states, 'where a person is entitled to claim compensation under Section 140 and Section 163-A, he shall file the claim under either of the said sections and not under both."
9. A three Judges Bench in Sudevi Srimathi and others versus n National Insurance Company Limited and Page 16 of 21 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 00:17:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16833/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined Another reported in (2009) 4 SCC 513 had an occasion to consider the question whether the second schedule to the 1988 Act can be made applicable in deciding the application for compensation under section 166 or not? The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the second schedule under section 163A of the Act, 1988, which gives the amount of compensation to be determined for the purpose of claim under that section can be taken as a guideline while determining the compensation under section 166 of the Act, 1988. The second schedule in terms does not apply to a claim under section 166 of the 1988 act.
10. Again, in the case of United India Assurance Company Limited vs. Patricia Jain Mahajan and others reported in (2002) 6 SCC 281, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider section 163A and 166 of the Act, 1988. Noticing the features of section 163A, the court observed that it provides for compensation in case of death or permanent settlement due to accidents arising out of use of motor vehicles. The amount of compensation would be indicated in the second schedule. The claimant is not required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement was due to any wrongful act or negligence or default of the owner of the vehicle or any other person. The court thereafter considered section 165 and 166 of the Act, 1988, by observing that a claim under section 166 did not provide for the amount of compensation as provided under second schedule in case of an application preferred under section 163A, rather section 168 makes it clear that it is for the tribunal to arrive at an Page 17 of 21 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 00:17:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16833/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined amount of compensation which it may considered to be just in the circumstances of the case. However, there were cases where courts have considered the structure formula as provided under the second schedule to be a safe guide to calculate the compensation while dealing with claim under section 166. Appropriate would be to look at the relevant observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Patricia Jain Mahajan (supra) more particularly as held in paragraph 19 and 20 emphasised.
11. Later on, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Reshma Kumari and others versus Madan Mohan and another reported in 2013 SCC Online SC 284, referring to the aforesaid decisions, and after considering the ratio lay down by the three Judges Bench in the case of Deepal Soni (supra), followed the view of the three Judges Bench by taking note of the earlier judgement in the case of Abatti Barua (supra), with reference to the structure formula set out in second schedule in 1988 Act, holding that it is well settled principle of law that the payment of compensation on the basis of structure formula is provided for under second schedule should not ordinarily be deviated from section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act which lays down the guidelines for determination of the amount of compensation in terms of Section 166. The deviation from the structure formula, however, as has been held by the Supreme Court, may be resorted to in exceptional cases. Furthermore, the Court emphasized on the core object that the amount of compensation should be just and fair, in the facts and Page 18 of 21 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 00:17:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16833/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined circumstances of each case. Thus, on overall consideration of aforesaid proposition of law, the Courts have in the facts of the case have referred to schedule under section 163A even in claim petition preferred under section 166 of the Act, 1988, in order to arrive at just and fair compensation. In other words, where the Supreme Court has treated the Second Schedule under Section 163A as a guiding framework rather than a rigid rule for determining compensation under Section 166 to ensure "just compensation" based on individual facts. This flexible approach highlights the benevolent intent of the Motor Vehicles Act
12. Considering the aforesaid legal position in the facts of the case, this court is of the view that in absence of any challenge being made by the petitioner insurance company against the final directions issued by this court in the first appeal, wherein the specific directions were issued to the tribunal while remanding the matter back to decide afresh with further directions to the tribunal to extend opportunities to the respective parties to submit their written statement, to lead their evidence, to hear them and to decide it afresh and with further directions to invest the amount deposited with the tribunal or in case of disbursement of the amount, the same to be the subject matter of outcome of the claim petition, clearly goes to suggest that the matter was to be decided afresh. In absence of any challenge being made by the petitioner insurance company against the aforesaid directions, the original order, awarding the amount of compensation under section 163A of the Act being quashed Page 19 of 21 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 00:17:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16833/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined and set aside, in absence of any provision prohibiting conversion of the claim petition from section 163A to section 166 of the act, the tribunal has rightly entertained the application referred by the original claimants seeking conversion of their petition as well as for amendment of the claim. In the opinion of this court, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioner insurance company. On the contrary, the original claimants are placed under burden to establish their case by leading evidence to prove relevant facets of Section 166 Claim Petition vis-a-vis negligence of the driver, the involvement of vehicle, entitlement of compensation, the quantum of compensation, the liability of owner vis a vis insurer etc.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails. The order dated 4th August 2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bhavnagar below application Exhibit 60 and 61 in MACP no. 48 of 2017 is here by up held and confirmed. The Tribunal is directed to proceed with the adjudication of the claim petition by treating it as an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. It is clarified that the amount which is realised by the claimant pursuant to the adjudication of their claim petition under section 163A of the Act, 1988 as earlier directed by learned single Judge of this court in First Appeal, shall be subject to outcome of the claim petition. The learned Judge is directed to expedite the adjudication of the original claim proceedings preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order to be concluded. With these observations, the writ Page 20 of 21 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 00:17:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/16833/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined petition stands disposed of. The interim order dated 13 th September 2019 passed by this court in present writ petition stands vacated.
sd/-
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH Page 21 of 21 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Mon Nov 17 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Nov 18 00:17:11 IST 2025