SAROJBEN KANUBHAI THAKOR vs ALKESHBHAI BHALABHAI BARBER

<div> C/SCA/8009/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026<br /> <b>IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD</b><br /> <b>R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8009 of 2025</b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI</b><br /> ==========================================================<br /> <b> </b><br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>Approved for Reporting</th><th>Yes</th><th>No</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> ==========================================================<br /> SAROJBEN KANUBHAI THAKOR &amp; ORS.<br /> Versus <br /> ALKESHBHAI BHALABHAI BARBER &amp; ANR.<br /> ==========================================================<br /> Appearance:<br /> NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7<br /> MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Respondent(s) No. 2<br /> NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1<br /> ==========================================================<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>CORAM:</th><th>HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> <b>Date : 23/03/2026</b><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>JUDGMENT</b><br /> 1. The captioned Special Civil Application has been preferred against<br /> the impugned order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the learned Motor<br /> Accident Claims Tribunal at Nadiad in application below Exh.72, filed in<br /> M.A.C.P. No. 1928 of 2009, whereby the application of the original<br /> claimants/petitioners herein to convert the Claim Petition filed under<br /> Section 163A to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>(hereinafter referred to as the “</th><th>ACT</th><th>”) was rejected.</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> 2. Heard learned counsels for the parties.<br /> 3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original<br /> claimants/petitioners herein vehemently submitted that the Petitioners<br /> had preferred the Claim Petition before the learned Tribunal on account<br /> of death of the husband of Petitioner No.1 in the vehicular accident<br /> Page 1 of 4<br /> Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 18:56:11 IST 2026<br /><br /> C/SCA/8009/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026<br /> which took place on 13.11.2009. He further submitted that initially, the<br /> Claim Petition came to be filed under Section 163A of Act. He further<br /> submitted that the said Claim Petition came to be allowed, however, the<br /> Insurance Company was exonerated from its liability to satisfy the<br /> award. He further submitted that said order was challenged in First<br /> Appeal No.2089 of 2012. Vide order dated 27.01.2025, the said appeal<br /> was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the concerned<br /> learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication. Thereafter, the original<br /> claimants/petitioners herein preferred the application below Exh.72 for<br /> converting the Claim Petition from Section 163A to Section 166 of the<br /> Act. He contended that the original claimants can convert the Claim<br /> Petition from Section 163A to Section 166 of the Act, at any stage of<br /> the proceedings and even at appellate stage, by moving an appropriate<br /> application. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal without<br /> appreciating the legal proposition of law, rejected the application for<br /> conversion preferred by the original claimants below Exh.72. He<br /> contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have allowed the<br /> application for conversion, in view of the settled legal proposition of<br /> law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners<br /> placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>this High Court in the case of</th><th>National Insurance Company Limited</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> <b>v. Mukeshbhai Bhalachandrabhai Jani (deceased) through</b><br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>heirs Ranjanben and ors.</th><th>reported in</th><th>2004 ACJ 1533.</th><th>Having</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> placed reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the<br /> original claimants/petitioners herein prayed that the captioned Special<br /> Civil Application be allowed.<br /> 4. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 – Insurance<br /> Company vehemently submitted that this is the second round of<br /> litigation. She contended that the application for converting the Claim<br /> Page 2 of 4<br /> Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 18:56:11 IST 2026<br /><br /> C/SCA/8009/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026<br /> Petition from Section 163A to Section 166 of the Act was filed at a<br /> belated stage. She further submitted that there is an inordinate delay in<br /> preferring the said application. She contended that the learned Tribunal<br /> had rightly rejected the said application for conversion vide its<br /> impugned order dated 15.04.2025. She further submitted that there is<br /> no infirmity in the impugned order, as such, the instant Petition<br /> deserves to be rejected.<br /> 5. Heard the learned counsels for the parties at length, and perused<br /> the material available on record.<br /> 6. At the outset, the issue involved in the captioned petition is as to<br /> whether a Claim Petition which came to be preferred under Section<br /> 163A of the Act, can be converted to Section 166 of the Act. In the case<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>of</th><th>Mukeshbhai Bhalachandrabhai Jani (deceased) through</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th>heirs Ranjanben and ors.</th><th>(supra), the Division Bench of this High</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> Court at para no.7 has observed as under : -<br /> <i>“7. In view of the above decisions, it is clear beyond any</i><br /> <i>manner of doubt that the claimant who is having three</i><br /> <i>statutory remedies available, (i) under Section 166, (ii)</i><br /> <i>under Section 140, and (iii) under Section 163-A of the</i><br /> <i>Act can exercise any of the said remedies. The Tribunal</i><br /> <i>is duty bound to consider the application. As far as the</i><br /> <i>case on hand is concerned, the claimants are justified in</i><br /> <i>withdrawing the original application filed under Section</i><br /> <i>166 of the Act and praying for the award under Section</i><br /> <i>163-A of the Act. In taking this view, we are also</i><br /> <i>supported by the decisions of the Full Bench of the</i><br /> <i>Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Guruanna</i><br /> <i>Vadi and anr. v. The General Manager, K.S.R.T.C., and</i><br /> <i>anr. reported in AIR 2001 Karnataka 275. It is held in</i><br /> Page 3 of 4<br /> Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 18:56:11 IST 2026<br /><br /> C/SCA/8009/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>the said decision that the claimant can move the Court</th><th></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>for amendment of his claim petition filed under Section</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>166 to that of a petition under Section 163-A at any</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>stage of the proceedings and it would be for the</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>concerned Court to pass an order on that application in</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>accordance with law, provided he satisfies other</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>conditions such as the income factor etc. and the only</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>bar provided for exercising an option in the matter of</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>filing a claim petition for compensation is to be found in</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Section 163-B which states, &#x27;”where a person is entitled</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>to claim compensation under Section 140 and Section</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>163-A, he shall file the claim under either of the said</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>sections and not under both”.”</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br /> 7. Thus, in view of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this<br /> High Court in the aforesaid judgment, I am of the considered view that<br /> the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal below Exh.72 is not<br /> sustainable and hence, the same is hereby set aside. As such, the<br /> captioned petition preferred by the original claimants/petitioners herein<br /> deserves to be allowed and accordingly, the original<br /> claimants/petitioners herein are hereby permitted to convert the Claim<br /> Petition from Section 163A to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles<br /> Act,1988.<br /></div><table><thead><tr><th>8.</th><th></th><th>In view of the above observations, the captioned Special Civil</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /> Application stands allowed and the same is accordingly disposed of. No<br /> order as to costs.<br /> <b>(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) </b><br /> ARUN<br /> Page 4 of 4<br /> Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Mar 25 18:56:11 IST 2026</div>