1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3121/2009. (Shri Shivajirao Madhaorao Chopade and another -: versus :- Mohd. Nabi Hussain Mohd. Hussain and another) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 06, 2010. Heard Shri S.S. Deshpande, learned Counsel for petitioners and Shri D.N. Kukdey, learned counsel for respondent no.2. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur has found proposed amendment to Claim Petition not bonafide and moved only to defeat the mandatory legal provisions. By the proposed amendment the petitioners / claimants seeks scaling down of the claim amount to bring it in accordance with Section 163[A] of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned counsel for petitioners contends that income pleaded is denied by the present respondent and hence when correct income is being placed on record, the respondent cannot be prejudiced in any way. 2 Shri Kukdey, learned counsel for respondent relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at 2004 SCJ 934 (Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others .vrs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.) and of this Court reported at I (2009) ACC 800 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .vrs. Ashabai & others), to urge that such scaling down is not permissible. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel contends that those judgments considers situation after final adjudication and here before adjudication claim is being reduced, as petitioner has learnt that income of deceased was less. The law on the point is well settled and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as also the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court have found that such scaling down may not be permissible. Proceedings under Section 163A are not interim in nature and call for decision as per Scheme thereof. Other claims can be decided under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. This Court has in its ruling (supra), permitted conversion of claim under Section 163A to Section 166 due to conduct of claimant. Here that is not the position. However, as the matter is at interlocutory stage and still pending, I am not inclined to interfere in it. The petitioners are at liberty to challenge the said order after 3 final adjudication of the Claim Petition, if occasion therefor arise. They can also request the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to try it as proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Writ Petition is disposed of with above liberty. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.