The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that a claimant in a motor accident case may convert a fault-based claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to a no-fault claim under Section 163-A even at the final stage of proceedings, provided there is no prejudice to the opposite party. This ruling reinforces the welfare-oriented interpretation of the MV Act and clarifies the scope of permissible amendments under the Code of Civil Procedure before Claims Tribunals.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a motor accident on 13.12.2019, in which Hazrat alias Karu died while travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No. MP30-MQ-2922. The claimants, respondents No.1 to 5, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the VIth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, seeking compensation of Rs.44,00,000/- against the driver of the motorcycle (respondent No.6) and the owner (respondent No.7). The petition alleged that the death resulted from the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle.
Key Facts
- The accident occurred on 13.12.2019.
- The FIR lodged on the same date (Annexure P/3) stated that the motorcycle collided with an unknown four-wheeler.
- The claim petition (Annexure P/2) specifically invoked Section 166 of the MV Act and alleged negligence by the motorcycle driver.
- The claimants initially pleaded the deceased’s monthly income as Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/-.
- The petitioner, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., filed a written statement contesting maintainability under Section 166, arguing that the accident was caused by a third-party vehicle, not the motorcycle driver.
- A specific issue was framed by the Tribunal on whether the driver of the motorcycle was negligent.
- Evidence was recorded from both parties, including deposition by claimants regarding income and circumstances of death.
- Written arguments were filed by the petitioner on 22.09.2025.
- On 16.10.2025, the claimants filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC read with Section 169 of the MV Act seeking amendment of the claim petition.
- The proposed amendments were: (i) to substitute Section 166 with Section 163-A; (ii) to reduce the claimed income of the deceased to Rs.40,000/- per annum; (iii) to delete the claim of Rs.44,00,000/- and recalculate compensation based on the structured formula under the Second Schedule; and (iv) to treat the deceased’s age as 26 years.
Procedural History
- 13.12.2019: Motor accident resulting in death of Hazrat alias Karu.
- Date unspecified: Claim petition filed under Section 166 of the MV Act before the VIth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior.
- Date unspecified: Written statement filed by petitioner challenging maintainability under Section 166.
- Date unspecified: Tribunal framed issue on negligence of motorcycle driver.
- 22.09.2025: Petitioner filed final written arguments.
- 16.10.2025: Claimants filed application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of claim petition.
- 17.11.2025: Tribunal allowed the amendment, permitted conversion to Section 163-A, and directed deletion of the negligence issue.
- 22.06.2025: Petitioner filed M.P. No. 7053 of 2025 under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior.
- 22.06.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Amit Seth.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner (ICICI Lombard)
- Argued that the amendment sought to fundamentally alter the nature of the claim from a fault-based to a no-fault claim at the final stage.
- Contended that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to allow such an amendment after evidence was closed and written arguments were filed.
- Relied on M.P. No. 3687/2018 (Coordinate Bench of this Court) to argue that conversion at this stage amounts to prejudice.
- Asserted that the deletion of the framed issue on negligence was beyond the scope of Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
For the Respondents No.6 and 7 (Motorcycle Owner and Driver)
- Submitted that the MV Act is a beneficial legislation and must be interpreted liberally to protect victims.
- Relied on Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2004) 5 SCC 385, Rukmani Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rita Devi to argue that conversion from Section 166 to 163-A is permissible at any stage.
- Emphasized that the claimants were not seeking to pursue both remedies simultaneously, but merely correcting an inadvertent error.
- Noted that the amendment would not introduce new facts but merely adjust the legal basis of the claim.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Tribunal’s order dated 17.11.2025, restoration of the original claim petition under Section 166, and a direction that the claim be adjudicated strictly on the basis of negligence.
The Legal Issue
Can a claimant, at the stage of final arguments after evidence has been closed, amend a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act to convert it into a claim under Section 163-A, and does such an amendment change the nature of the proceedings so as to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the amendment sought to convert a fault-based claim into a no-fault claim after the conclusion of evidence and submission of written arguments. This, it argued, amounted to a fundamental change in the nature of the claim, prejudicing the insurer’s ability to defend against allegations of negligence. Reliance was placed on M.P. No. 3687/2018, where a Coordinate Bench held that such amendments at the final stage are impermissible. The petitioner further argued that the Tribunal’s deletion of the framed issue on negligence was beyond the scope of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which permits amendment of pleadings but not the deletion of judicially framed issues.
For the Respondent/State
The counsel for respondents No.6 and 7 submitted that the MV Act is a social welfare statute designed to ensure speedy compensation to victims. Citing Deepal Girishbhai Soni, Rukmani Devi, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rita Devi, they argued that the law permits conversion from Section 166 to Section 163-A at any stage, provided both remedies are not pursued simultaneously. They emphasized that the amendment merely corrected an inadvertent error in pleading and did not introduce new facts. The deletion of the negligence issue was a natural consequence of shifting to a no-fault regime under Section 163-A, where negligence need not be proved.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a comprehensive review of the statutory framework under the Motor Vehicles Act and the procedural flexibility afforded under the Code of Civil Procedure. It observed that Section 163-A provides a structured formula for compensation without requiring proof of negligence, while Section 166 requires the claimant to establish fault. The Court noted that the claimants had not sought to pursue both remedies simultaneously, but merely sought to correct a pleading error.
"The statute has to be construed according to the intent of the makers and it is the duty of the courts to interpret the statute to see that true intention of legislature is achieved."
The Court relied on the Delhi High Court’s decisions in Rukmani Devi and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rita Devi, which held that the only prohibition is on concurrent claims under both sections, not on conversion from one to the other. The Court further cited the Coordinate Bench decision in Lakhan Puri v. Manoj Kumar, which affirmed that amendments under Order VI Rule 17 CPC are applicable before Claims Tribunals, provided no prejudice is shown.
The Court emphasized that the Supreme Court in Valsamma Chacko v. M.A. Titto (2025) had gone further, holding that even when the claimant does not seek conversion, the Tribunal ought to offer the option when fault liability is found to be non-existent. The Court observed that the Tribunal’s decision to allow the amendment was consistent with this welfare-oriented jurisprudence.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that deletion of the negligence issue was beyond the scope of amendment. It held that once the claim is converted to Section 163-A, the issue of negligence becomes legally irrelevant, and its deletion is a consequential and necessary step. The Court also noted that the petitioner would retain full opportunity to challenge the quantum of compensation under the structured formula, and no new evidence or facts were introduced.
Finally, the Court applied the principle from Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329, holding that where the subordinate tribunal’s view is a possible one, interference under Article 227 is unwarranted. The Tribunal’s order was found to be legally sound, procedurally fair, and aligned with the legislative intent of the MV Act.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The High Court affirmed the order dated 17.11.2025 of the VIth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, allowing the amendment of the claim petition from Section 166 to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimants are now confined to compensation under the structured formula in the Second Schedule, with income capped at Rs.40,000/- per annum. The issue of negligence against the motorcycle driver stands deleted as legally redundant. No costs were awarded. The interim order dated 17.12.2025 was vacated.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Conversion to Section 163-A Is Permissible at Any Stage
- Practitioners may now confidently seek conversion from Section 166 to Section 163-A even after evidence is closed, provided the claimant is not pursuing both remedies simultaneously.
- Tribunals are obligated to consider such amendments as part of their duty to ensure justice to accident victims.
- Insurers cannot oppose such amendments merely on grounds of delay or stage of proceedings unless actual prejudice is demonstrated.
Deletion of Framed Issues Is Consequential and Valid
- When a claim shifts from fault-based to no-fault liability, issues relating to negligence become irrelevant and may be deleted as a matter of course.
- Tribunals are not required to retain issues that are rendered legally redundant by a change in the statutory basis of the claim.
- This prevents procedural technicalities from defeating substantive rights of claimants.
Welfare Legislation Overrides Procedural Rigidity
- The MV Act is not governed by strict civil procedure; its interpretation must prioritize victim compensation.
- Amendments under Order VI Rule 17 CPC are applicable before Claims Tribunals, subject to the absence of prejudice.
- Courts must adopt a purposive interpretation to give effect to the social objectives of the statute, even if it requires relaxing procedural norms.
