ORDER
Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.
1. As the point involved in all the revisions is the same, these revisions are disposed of by this common order.
2. The brief facts are that all the petitioners are injured in an accident occurred on account of collision between two vehicles i.e. a jeep bearing No. AP25G-4649 and a lorry. It appears that the driver of the lorry, who was responsible for the said accident, sped away immediately after the accident and the police after due investigation, filed a report stating that it is a hit and run case and the said accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry, but not on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of jeep. The petitioners in all these revision petitions invoked the jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, claiming compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) for the injuries sustained by them in the aforesaid accident. Subsequently, the said petitioners-claimants filed interlocutory applications seeking amendment to the effect that the compensation may be awarded under Section 163(A) of the Act, instead of awarding under Section 166 of the Act. However, the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal rejected the said prayer. Hence these revisions.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, perused the impugned orders and other material on record.
4. From a perusal of the record, it is clear that the police filed a report stating that it is a hit and run case and the particulars of the lorry and its driver are not known. No doubt, in the said report, it is clearly stated that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry but not the driver of the jeep. But, on that score the Court below ought not to have rejected interlocutory applications seeking amendment. Though according to the Rules made under the Act such an amendment is not permissible, this Court interpreted the said Rules and held that the provisions provided for the applications seeking amendment under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be made applicable to the applications claiming compensation under the Act. When once the provisions of the Code are made applicable, it can be said that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties as provided under Order VI Rule 13 of CPC. Of course, there is a prohibition that the said amendment shall not ordinarily be allowed if the trial has commenced.
5. No doubt, in the instant case, the trial has commenced, but the Court below has not rejected the interlocutory applications on that score. The reason adopted by the Court below in dismissing the interlocutory applications, in my considered view, appears to be erroneous. As the particulars of the driver of the lorry, who was responsible for the alleged accident, are not available and on that ground the petitioners might have chosen to file the said applications seeking amendment of the prayer claiming compensation against the owner of the jeep and its insurance company. The ground that the police filed a report stating that there was no rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the jeep, cannot be a ground to reject the applications seeking amendment.
6. In fact the point involved in these revisions is no more res integra and in an identical case a Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited, Tirupati v. Mokkala Chandramma and Ors. , held that a petition claiming compensation filed under Section 166 of the Act can at any stage of the proceedings be amended as a petition under Section 163(A) of the Act. Further, after a detailed discussion the Gujarat High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mukeshbhai Bhalchandrabhai Jani (deceased) through heirs Ranjanben and Ors., held that at any stage of the proceedings including the stage of appeal, the petitioners can seek amendment of their claim from Sections 166 to 163(A) of the Act. Hence, this Court is of the view that the orders impugned in all these revisions are liable to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, all the civil revision petitions are allowed at the stage of admission, setting aside the Order dated 27-3-2006 passed in LA. No. 422 of 2006 in O.P. No. 2125 of 2002; LA. No. 420 of 2006 in O.P. No. 2123 of 2002; LA. No. 419 of 2006 in O.P. No. 2122 of 2002; I.A. No. 423 of 2006 in O.P. No. 2126 of 2002 and LA. No. 421 of 2006 in O.P. No. 2124 of 2006 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court, Nizamabad).