High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-03-14Disposed of with directions

T. N. Sudarsanan v. Satheesh R, KSRTC Transport Bhavan, Fort, Thiruvananthapuram; The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Case / Petition Number:OP (MAC).No. 85 of 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Anil K. Narendran
Judgment Date: 2019-03-14
Court Decision / Holding: The original petition is disposed of by setting aside Exts. P5 and P6 (orders) dated 11.06.2018 and directing the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta to reconsider I.A. Nos.1923/2018 and 1924/2018 in OP(MV) No.307/2015 and pass appropriate orders thereon, taking note of the law laid down in the cited decisions, with notice to both sides. A decision shall be taken within two months from the receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with directions

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

T. N. Sudarsanan

Respondents

Satheesh R
KSRTC Transport Bhavan, Fort, Thiruvananthapuram-23
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S. Subhash Chand

Counsels for Respondents

• A. A. Ziyad Rahman
• P. C. Chacko
• S. Radhakrishnan K.R.
• Joy Joseph (Manayathu)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges two interlocutory orders of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, rejecting I.A. Nos. 1923/2018 and 1924/2018 in OP(MV) No. 307/2015, which sought to amend the claim petition to incorporate additional heads of compensation and to exempt the enhanced claim from balance court fee. The petitioner, who was a claimant in the MACT proceeding and is a non-permanent employee with substantial medical expenses and a permanent disability certificate, contends that the Tribunal erred in denying amendments designed to enable a comprehensive adjudication of his losses and thereby denied him a fair opportunity to seek just compensation. The Tribunal justified its decisions on the ground that the claimant had already claimed Rs 10 lakh and that amendments would shift the burden of costs to respondents; it held that rule-based procedures under CPC could not be imported wholesale into MACT proceedings. The High Court, invoking Sections 169 and Rule 395 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules and Order VI Rule 17 CPC, and citing Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and National Insurance Co. v. Sajeev, holds that amendments to pleadings can be allowed at any stage if necessary to determine the real questions, and that fair play and natural justice require consideration of such amendments in appropriate cases. The order sets aside Exts. P5 and P6 and directs the Tribunal to reconsider the applications, with notices, within two months.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 227 of the Constitution of IndiaMotor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 168Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 169Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166(4)Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 158(6)Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 – Rule 395Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VI Rule 17Code of Civil Procedure, 1908CrPC, 1973 – Section 195CrPC, 1973 – Chapter XXVI

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Principle of fair play, propriety and natural justice
Amendment of pleadings to determine the real questions in controversy

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that, under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and the broader framework of the Motor Vehicles Act and Kerala Rules, the Tribunal should allow amendments to the claim petition to enable a full adjudication of enhanced compensation claims under various heads. He contends that his medical records, ongoing treatments, and a permanent disability certificate justify revisiting compensation heads and that bearing the court fee for such amendments should not bar relief; the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 to ensure fair procedure and justice.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the MACT already entertained a claim of Rs 10 lakh and that allowing amendments would impose additional costs on the defendants. They argue proper application of CPC amendments is limited in MACT proceedings, and the Tribunal’s orders were in line with the statutory framework and cost considerations. They emphasize that the approach should avoid altering the core award after it is issued and that the petition should not derail the final determination without due scrutiny.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh	[(2003) 2 SCC 274]	Positive	Apex Court held that Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is applicable to MACT proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act and may permit amendment for enhanced compensation when justified by the evidence.
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sajeev and others	[2018 (1) KHC 795]	Positive	Division Bench held CPC provisions do not proprio vigore apply to MACT petitions, but fair play and Rule 395 plus related CPC principles guide procedure; the decision is cited to support the court’s emphasis on fair play and procedural fairness in MACT proceedings.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against T. N. Sudarsanan v. Satheesh R, KSRTC Transport Bhavan, Fort, Thiruvananthapuram; The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **THURSDAY,THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1940** ## **OP (MAC).No. 85 of 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2018 IN IA NOS.1923/2018 AND 1924/2018 IN OP(MV) 307/2015 of THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA** ## **PETITIONER:** **T.N.SUDARSANAN AGED 38 YEARS S/O. NEELAKANDAN, THAKDIYIL HOUSE, THEEPANY, THIRUVALLA.P.O., PIN-689101.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 SATHEESH R S/O. RAJAMANI, CKM (HOUSE,KILLYALLUR,CHERAMANGALAM.P.O., PALAKKAD678703. R1 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED 18/02/2019 IN IA.NO.1/2019) 2 MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. 3 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KHAISE BUILDING,OPP. BENZIGER HOSPITAL,KOLLAM-691001. BY ADVS. SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.P.C.CHACKO, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. SHRI.RADHAKRISHNAN K.R. SRI.JOY JOSEPH (MANAYATHU)** **THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** OP (MAC).No. 85 of 2018 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is the claimant in O.P.(M.V.) No. 307/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, has filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking an order to set aside Exts.P5 and P6 orders passed by the Tribunal in I.A. Nos.1923/2018 and 1924/2018 in that claim petition; and to issue appropriate direction to the Tribunal to reconsider Exts.P2 and P3 interlocutory applications under Rules 395 and 397(2) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, read with Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. On 13.07.2018, when this original petition came up for admission, this Court issued urgent notice by speed post to the first respondent, returnable in three weeks. The learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC and the learned Standing Counsel for New India Assurance Company Ltd. took notice on admission for respondents 2 and 3 respectively. This Court has granted an interim order, whereby the final disposal of O.P.(M.V.)No.307/2015 was ordered to be deferred for a OP (MAC).No. 85 of 2018 3 period of one month. The said interim order, which was extended from time to time, is still in force. 3. On 18.02.2019 by an order in I.A.No. 1/2019, the first respondent driver of the offending vehicle in O.P.(MV)No.307/2015 was deleted from the party array, at the risk of the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC, representing the second respondent, and also the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent Insurance Company. 5. The sole issue that arises for consideration in this original petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Exts.P5 and P6 orders of the Tribunal, whereby I.A. Nos.1923/2018 and 1924/2018 in O.P. (M.V.) No.307/2015, which are applications filed by the petitioner, who is the claimant in that claim petition, seeking an order to amend the claim petition by incorporating certain amendments in order to claim enhanced compensation under different heads, and for an order to exempt him from payment of the balance court fee of Rs.15,000/- on account of such amendments, stand rejected. OP (MAC).No. 85 of 2018 4 6. By Ext.P5 order, the Tribunal rejected I.A.No.1923/2018 filed by the petitioner for amendment, noticing that the petitioner, who is not a permanent employee had already claimed a total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, though his claim is supported by a disability certificate with a permanent disability of 40%. At the time of award, if the claimant is found entitled, the Tribunal can grant higher compensation than that claimed in the petition. The enhancement of claim amount at a later stage would cause only additional burden to pay the required court fee on the head of proportionate costs, by the respondents, at the time of award. In view of the dismissal of I.A.No.1923/2018 by Ext.P5 order, the Tribunal, by Ext.P6 order, rejected I.A.No.1924/2018, which is an application seeking exemption to pay court fee for the enhanced claim amount. 7. Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with procedure and powers of Claims Tribunal. As per sub-section (2) of Section 169, the Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the OP (MAC).No. 85 of 2018 5 attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 8. Rule 395 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 provides that the provisions of Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30 of Order V, Rules 16 to 18 of Order VI, Order IX, Rules 3 to 10 of Order XIII, Rules 1 to 21 of Order XVI, Rules 1 to 3 of Order XXIII and Order XXVI of the First Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall, so far as may be, apply to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. 9. In view of the aforesaid provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, the provisions under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with amendment of pleadings shall apply to the proceedings in a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal may at any stage of the proceedings in a claim petition allow either party to OP (MAC).No. 85 of 2018 6 alter or amend its 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. 10. In **Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh [(2003) 2 SCC 274]** , a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court, in the context of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules 253 and 254 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 held that, Rule 254 _inter alia_ makes specific provisions that Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal, which is holding an enquiry under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with Section 169. In this view of the matter, in appropriate case, depending upon the facts and the evidence, which has been brought on record and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal may permit amendment of the claim petition so as to award enhanced compensation. The Apex Court held further that, in case, where there is evidence on record justifying the enhanced compensation, there is no reason why such amendment OP (MAC).No. 85 of 2018 7 or enhanced compensation should not be granted. As provided under sub-section (4) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, even a report of accident forwarded to the Claims Tribunal under sub-section (6) of Section 158 can be treated as an application for compensation under the said Act. Therefore, if required, in appropriate cases, the Tribunal may permit amendment of the claim petition. 11. In **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sajeev and others [2018 (1) KHC 795]** a Division Bench of this Court held that, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, except those provisions made specifically applicable, do not _proprio vigore_ apply to claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals. As per Section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal acts generally as a Court and vested with necessary powers under the Code of Civil Procedure in certain matters and in respect of other matters, the Tribunal is certainly bound to follow the procedure consistent with the principle of fair play, propriety and natural justice. Going by Rule 395 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, the provisions under Rules 16 to 18 of OP (MAC).No. 85 of 2018 8 Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals. 12. In the instant case, the claim petition in O.P. (MV)No.307/2015 is dated 16.03.2015, i.e., one prepared within three months from the date of accident. Going by the averments in the affidavit accompanying to I.A.No.1923/2018, the application for amendment, the petitioner had undergone impatient treatment at SP Fort Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram for the period from 01.05.2015 till 14.05.2015 and thereafter, from 05.10.2015 to 15.10.2015; from 04.01.2016 to 11.01.2016; and from 13.10.2017 to 02.11.2017. According to the petitioner, he is still undergoing outpatient treatment at SP Fort Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and he had already incurred a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards treatment expenses. 13. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC, representing the second respondent, and also the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent Insurance Company, this Court OP (MAC).No. 85 of 2018 9 finds that the question as to whether an amendment of the claim petition in O.P.(MV)No.307/2015 is necessary for a proper disposal of that matter, considering the facts disclosed in the affidavit accompanying to I.A.No.1923/2018, requires consideration at the hands of the Tribunal, taking note of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra. 14. In the result, this original petition is disposed of setting aside Exts.P5 and P6 orders dated 11.06.2018 and by directing the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta to reconsider I.A.Nos.1923/ 2018 and 1924/2018 in O.P.(MV)No.307/2015 and pass appropriate orders thereon, taking note of the law laid in the decisions referred to supra, with notice to both sides. A decision in this regard shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **JUDGE** DCS OP (MAC).No. 85 of 2018 10 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**EXT.P1.**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR**| |---|---| ||**COMPENSATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER**| ||**BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA AS OP(MV) NO. 307/2015.**| |**EXT.P2.**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT,**| ||**NAMELY, I.A. NO. 1923 OF 2018 IN OP(MV) NO.**| ||**307 OF 2015.**| |**EXT.P3.**|**TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 1924 OF 2018 IN**| ||**OP(MV) NO. 307 OF 2015.**| |**EXT.P4.**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE**| ||**DATED 19-7-2016 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD**| ||**ATTACHED TO THE GENERAL HOSPITAL,**| ||**PATHANAMTHITTA.**| |**EXT.P5.**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11-6-2018**| ||**PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS**| ||**TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA IN I.A. NO. 1923**| ||**OF 2018 IN OP(MV) NO. 307 OF 2015.**| |**EXT.P6.**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11-6-2018**| ||**PASSED BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS**| ||**TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA IN I.A. NO. 1924**| ||**OF 2018 IN OP(MV) NO. 307 OF 2015.**|