Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Though prima facie from the evidence on record, it appears that there is sufficient materials to show that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, as to why, was the claim application filed under Section 163A of M.V. Act is not clear to this Court.

12. An application under Section 166 of M.V. Act along with an application under Section 163A of M.V. Act is maintainable but on the guidelines/directions in Deepal Girishbhai Soni & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda, (Supra). Here in this case no such application under Section 166 of M.V. Act has been filed.

"31. Reference of following judgments is also relevant (1) Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shashi Sharma & Ors. reported in 2016 (9) SCC 627 (2) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Chintharbhai Sibabhai reported in 2004 (3) GLR 2018 (3) National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. S.L. Sharma & Ors.

reported in 2009 (1) ACC 282 (4) Narsiji Nagaji Majirana vs. Manilal Amturam Bishnoi reported in 2004 (1) FLR 875 31.1 wherein different Courts have held that order under Section 163A is practically awarding interim amount of compensation and that in fact there ware two options open to the claimants under the act i.e. (i) under Section 166 and (ii) under Section 14 or under Section 163A of the Act. Thereby claimant can file appropriate application under Section 166 for full compensation which can be awarded based upon the evidence adduced before the tribunal as well as either under Section 140 or under Section 166 of the Act, wherein the tribunal can award interim amount of compensation either as a fix amount of Rs.50,000/- or based upon the structural formula as per second schedule of the Act, even without recording evidence. Such position is required because for the victims whose income is fixed as salaried person but whose yearly income is less than Rs.40,000/- and thereby their families certainly in need of compensation, at the earliest, tribunal can award compensation under structural formula without waiting for evidence to be recorded, more particularly when prima facie evidence regarding age and income is possible for some of the victims when they are salaried and having specific evidence regarding their age and income.

"5.2 In case of Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita and Others, 2019 ACJ 109, it is held by the NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/845/2023 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2023 undefined Karnataka High Court that there is no prohibition under Motor Vehicles Act for conversion of a claim application from one under Section 163A to Section 166. The claimants during pendency of appeal filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking permission to convert their claim filed under Section 163A to Section 166. It was noted that the Tribunal and High Court have discretionary power to allow conversion of the claim application taking into consideration the facts of the case and conduct of the claimants. In Sunita and Others (supra), in Paragraphs 8 and 12, the scope of Sections 163A and 166 of the MV Act has been explained, which read as under:-

15. In the present case, the petitioner's claim is under Section 163A of M.V. Act. There is no prayer to convert the application under Section 163A of M.V. Act to an application under Section 166 of M.V. Act, even though the learned counsel on behalf of the claimant has prayed for enhanced compensation.

16. The claimant has already received a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation under Section 163A of M.V. Act, the highest that now be granted being Rs.5,00,000/-.

17. Thus, considering the judgment Pushpalattaben Navinchanda vs. Gujarat State Road Transport, (Supra) and Govindbhai Chhaganbhai Bhil (Rana) vs. Dilawarkhan Sahebkhan Baloch, (Supra), the interest of justice requires that the claimant be given an opportunity to convert the claim application under Section 163A of M.V. Act to one under Section 166 of M.V. Act, even at this stage (appellate).