Bombay High Court

MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH DIVISIONAL CONTROLLERversusKANTABAI NAMDEV DIVEKAR

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The amendment of the claim petition, including correction of the registration number and conversion from Section 166 to Section 164, is permissible and the writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation filed a writ petition challenging the Aurangabad Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order that allowed Kantabai Divekar to amend her compensation claim for her husband's accidental death. The amendment sought to correct the offending vehicle's registration number and to change the claim from Section 166 to Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner argued that the amendment was filed at a belated stage, that changing the registration number was impermissible, and that converting the claim would substantially alter its nature. The High Court observed that the registration number error arose from the FIR based on hearsay and that the amendment would not prejudice the petitioner, as cross‑examination remained possible. Emphasising the beneficial nature of the legislation, the Court held that the amendment was permissible and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether an amendment to a claim petition filed at a belated stage can be permitted by the tribunal.
Whether the correction of an erroneous vehicle registration number in the claim petition is allowable.
Whether converting a claim from Section 166 to Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act constitutes a substantial change in the nature of the claim that should be barred.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 164, 166

Subjects

Motor Vehicles Act
Section 164
Section 166
compensation claim
accidental death
amendment of pleadings
registration number correction
tribunal order
writ petition

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:14402


                                                  1                     WP 13411.25.odt

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 943 WRIT PETITION NO.13411 OF 2025

                          Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Through
                                          Divisional Controller,
                                                 VERSUS
                                        Kantabai Namdev Divekar
                                                    ...
                              Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. S.N. Janakwade
                                                    ...

                                          CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                          Dated    : March 24, 2026

                     ORDER :-

                     1.     Present writ petition takes exception to the order dated

                     31.7.2025 passed below Exhibit-28 in M.A.C.P No.1039 of

                     2023 pending before the M.A.C.T., at Aurangabad, thereby

                     allowing application for amendment filed by respondent/

                     original claimant.

                     2.     The respondent instituted M.A.C.P. No.1039 of 2023

                     seeking compensation under the provisions of Motor Vehicles

                     Act, 1988 towards accidental death of her husband Namdev

                     Kesu Divekar. It is her contention that while he was travelling

                     on motorcycle, S.T. Bus gave dash to the motorcycle.

                     Eventually, deceased suffered fatal injuries. It appears that,

                     while recording of evidence was started, respondent filed an
                             2                     WP 13411.25.odt

application below Exhibit-28 seeking amendment of claim

petition stating that she wants to convert the claim petition

from section 166 to 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act and also

delete incorrect registration number of the offending vehicle

and insert correct number thereof.   The Tribunal allowed said

application vide impugned order subject to payment of costs of

Rs. 5,000/-.


3.    Learned advocate appearing for petitioner raises two

fold challenge to the impugned order. Firstly, he contends that

application for amendment was filed at belated stage and

permission is sought to change registration number of the

offending vehicle.    Secondly, the claim is sought to be

converted from section 166 of the M.V. Act to claim under

section 164 of the MV Act, which would cause substantial

change in the nature of the claim.


4.    Having considered submissions advanced, it can be

observed that respondent had filed claim on the basis of

registration of number as it was appearing in the police papers.

FIR was registered on the basis of hear-say information given

by one Satish Namdev Divekar. As such, there was mistake in
                               3                     WP 13411.25.odt

recording of registration number as ‘MH-20/BL-1566’ instead

of ‘MH-20/BL-1560.’ The applicant seeks to correct that error.


5.       So far as second contention that there would be

substantial change in the nature of claim, this Court finds that

proceeding for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act is part

of beneficial legislation.   If the claimant is entitled to raise

claim under any of the enabling provisions, he cannot be

prevented for the technical reasons. Although amendment is

sought at belated stage, it would cause no prejudice to the

petitioner. Petitioner is entitled to cross-examine the claimant

or her witnesses during course of the trial. In result, this court

do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order.

Hence, writ petition stands rejected.



                                   ( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. )
                                   …
AAA/-f

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…