IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2625 of 2008(K) --------------------------------- OPMV.544/2000 of IST ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUDHA, D/O.MURUKESHAN, AGED 19 YEARS, ELLAKKAL STREET, ADOORAKAM VILLAGE, GOODHALLOOR TALUK, TAMILNAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. M.PURUSHOTHAMAN, NARAYANI NIVAS, POST PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE. 2. K.SATHYAN, S/O.UNICHOYI KALLUTHODUKAYIL HOUSE, POST KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE DT. 3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY FOR R1-2 SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 2625 of 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED ALONG WITH I.A.NO.259/2007 IN O.P.(MV)NO.544/2000. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED ALONG WITH I.A.NO.261/2007 IN O.P.(MV) 544/2000 EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED IN I.A.NO.259/2007 BY R3. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED IN I.A.NO.261/2007 BY R3. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DTD 29.10.2007 THE 1ST ADDL.M.A.C.T. KOZHIKODE IN I.A.259/2007 AND IA 261/2007 IN O.P.(MV)544/2000. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.2625 OF 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is one of the three claimants in O.P.(MV) No.544/2000 before the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The claim petition was originally filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner without the junction of the other two claimants, filed an application for amendment of the claim into one under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. By Ext.P5 order, along with two other applications, that application was dismissed on the ground that the same was filed only after the criminal case was referred as mistake of fact after investigation and the respondents filed their written statement denying allegation of negligence. The petitioner challenges the same. 2. Heard the parties. Although I am not satisfied with the reasons stated for rejecting the application for amendment, because of a technical objection, I am unable to allow the writ W.P.(C)No.2625/08 2 petition. Admittedly, the claim petition was filed by three petitioners. The others are the widow and the son of the deceased victim. The petitioner is the daughter of the deceased victim. When all three had together filed the claim petition under Section 166, the petitioner alone cannot seek amendment to make it a claim under Section 166A. I also note that by the impugned order another application of the petitioner to transpose the other two claimants as respondents was also dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to consider the claim for amendment of the claim petition as one under Section 166A, if all the three petitioners in the O.P.(MV) together files an amendment application. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.2625/08 3 W.P.(C)No.2625/08 4