IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011/20TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 27005 of 2010 (A) ---------------------------------------- [O.P(M.V).NO.1487/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI] ................ PETITIONER: ------------------- SAIFUNNISSA, W/O.LATE MOHAMMED SHAFI, ELADYODATH HOUSE, PAITHINIPARAMBA, DOWN HILL P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON, SRI.M.V.ANANDAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. MUJEEB RAHMAN.P., S/O.LATE MOHAMMED, PAIKKADAN HOUSE, PAITHINIPARAMBA, KOTTAPPADI, DOWN HILL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 676 519. 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., VIGNESWARA BUILDING, NEAR OVER BRIDGE, 7, PUDUKKOTTAI ROAD, THIRUCHIRAPPALLI-620 020. 3. MOHAMMED SAIFAS (MINOR), AGED 12 YEARS, S/O.LATE MOHAMMED SHAFI, ELAYODATH HOUSE, PAITHINIPARAMBA, DOWN HILL P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 676 519. 4. MOHAMMED SHAMIL (MINOR), AGED 8 YEARS, S/O.LATE MOHAMMED SHAFI, ELADYODATH HOUSE, PAITHINIPARAMBA, DOWN HILL P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676 519. 5. IBRAHIM .E., S/O.HYDROS, ELADYODATH HOUSE, PLAITHINIPARAMBA, DOWN HILL P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 676 519. W.P.(C).NO.27005/2010-A: 6. SAINABA. C., W/O. IBRAHIM, ELAYODATH HOUSE, PAITHINIPARAMBA, DOWN HILL.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 676 519. R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-11-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.27005/2010-A: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAKKAD DTD. 23/10/2009. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS I.A. NO. 3177/2008 IN O.P.(M.V).NO.1487/2005. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE R.2, INSURANCE COMPANY DTD. 15/06/2010. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. 3177/2008 IN O.P. (M.V).NO.1487/2005 ON THE FILE OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER WRITTEN BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER SRI. M. BASHARUDHEEN ALI BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.K. ABDUL REHIM,J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 27005 OF 2010-A ------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the wife of a person who died in a motor vehicle accident. The respondents 3 to 6 herein are legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioner along with respondents 3 to 6 have filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri as OP (MV) No.1487/2005 seeking compensation on account of the death, under Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. During the pendency of the claim petition, they ubmitted I.A No.3177 seeking to amend the claim petition filed under Section 163 (A) for altering the monthly income of the deceased from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.3,000/-. According to the petitioner, eventhough the claim petition was filed stating that the deceased was having income of Rs.15,000/- per month at the time of his death from his employment in Gulf countries, after filing of the application it was realised that W.P.(c) No.27005/2010 -2- monthly income which could be reckoned for the purpose of dependency was Rs.3,000/- only. Therefore the application was filed to amend the particular column related to income of the deceased. The interim application was opposed before the Tribunal stating that the only intention of the petitioner is to bring the claim within the monetary limit prescribed under Section 163 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Tribunal dismissed the application for amendment observing that the amendment, if allowed will go to the root of the matter since the petition was filed under Section 163 (A) in which the upper income limit is Rs.40,000/- per annum. The Tribunal further observed that the petitioner had failed to state what is the basis for reducing the income of the deceased from 15,000/- to Rs.3,000/-. 2. Heard Sri. Rajan P. Kaliyath, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Insurance Company who supported the findings in Ext.P4. Sri. K. Sathyanatha Menon learned W.P.(c) No.27005/2010 -3- counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the dismissal of the amendment application was highly illegal and improper. It is pointed out that as per settled legal position it is the duty of the Tribunal to award reasonable compensation on the basis of evidence or on the basis of report received from the police officers concerned in respect of death cases and in cases where the victims suffers injuries. That being the position the rejection of the amendment application on the reason stated is unsustainable He relied on decision in Jacob Thomas V. Pandian (2005 (4) KLT 545) and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V. Dhanbai Kanji Gadhvi (2011 (1) KLT 617) in support of the above contentions. 3. I am of the considered opinion that strict procedure based on the Code of Civil Procedure or Civil Rules of Practice are not applicable in the case of disposal of motor accidents claims. There is nothing prohibiting the claimants from amending the Claim Petition to the effect of W.P.(c) No.27005/2010 -4- reducing income of the deceased, even if such reduction will result in bringing the claim within the limits of Section 163 (A). It is settled legal position that the claimants are entitled to convert a claim under Section 166 as a claim under Section 163 (A) or vice-versa, on permissible grounds. The quantum of compensation to be awarded need be determined on the basis of evidence which will be adduced before the Tribunal. Therefore, I am of the view that even if the amendment is allowed, the petitioner had to adduce evidence to substantiate that the claim petition under Section 163(A) is maintainable. Therefore, there is no impediment in allowing the amendment and permitting the petitioner to prosecute the claim on the basis of such amendment. 4. Under the above mentioned circumstances I am of the view that the reasons stated in Ext.P4 declining the amendment is unsustainable. Exhibit P4 is hereby quashed. The amendment application filed as I.A No.3177/2008 in OP W.P.(c) No.27005/2010 -5- (MV) No.1487/2005 on the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal will stand allowed. The Tribunal is directed to consider and dispose of Claim Petition after permitting the petitioner to carry out the amendment. 5. It is made clear that the amendment allowed will not stand in the way of rejecting the claim if it is ultimately found in evidence that the deceased was having income of more than Rs.40,000/- per annum, which is beyond the limit prescribed under Section 163 (A). Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. AMG True copy P.A to Judge