Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Gujarat · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6261 (GUJ)

HITANGINI ISHWAR PATEL v. ANILKUMAR JIVAN HALPALI

SCA/13011/2025 · 2026-02-16

Hasmukh D Suthar

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13011 of 2025 ========================================================== HITANGINI ISHWAR PATEL Versus ANILKUMAR JIVAN HALPALI & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 16/02/2026 ORAL ORDER (1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :- “(b) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction modifying the impugned order passed under Exh:34 dated 09.07.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main), Valsad at Annexure-A (colly)” (c) Your Lordships be pleased to stay further proceedings of MACP No.172/2018 pending before learned Motor Accident Claim Petition (Main), Valsad pending 3nal disposal of this Special Civil Application-Annexure-B.” (2) Heard Mr. Kaash K. Thakkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Palak Thakkar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. (3) Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, it is an admitted and undisputed fact that the claimant initially preferred MACP No. 172/2018 under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is presently pending before the Tribunal for adjudication. The claimant now intends to convert the said proceedings into under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also an admitted position p. 1 that, till date, neither any interim nor @nal compensation has been received by the claimant and the claim petition is still pending adjudication. Merely because the claimant himself was negligent and, therefore, the proceedings under Section 166 of the Act may not be maintainable, cannot be a ground to reject the request for conversion. As argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case is based on negligence and the Insurance Company has already collected premium covering the driver’s risk. Therefore, it is needless to say that such issues are required to be adjudicated after the parties lead evidence before the Tribunal. (4) The limited question that arises in the present petition is with regard to the right of the claimant to convert the proceedings from Section 163A to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal. (5) Considering the benevolent object of the legislation and the fact that the proceedings are still pending for adjudication, and in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dipal Girishbhai Soni & Ors. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2004 SC 2107, and Rukmani Devi vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2009 ACJ 2202, there is no bar to convert the claim petition from Section 163A to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. This is not a case where the claimant is simultaneously pursuing two remedies under Sections 163A and 166 of the Act in parallel. (6) In view of the above and without entering into the merits of the case, the petition is allowed. The impugned order passed below Exh. 34 dated 09.07.2025 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Valsad, is hereby quashed and set aside. The proceedings of MACP No. 172/2018 pending before the Tribunal at Valsad are permitted to be converted into proceedings under Section 166 of the p. 2 Motor Vehicles Act. It is clari@ed that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, including the maintainability of the claim or the liability of the Insurance Company. All such issues shall be decided independently by the Tribunal on their own merits after the parties lead evidence. (7) With the above observation and direction, petition is disposed of accordingly. Direct Service is permitted. (HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J) SUCHIT p. 3 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: PATEL SUCHIT JAYESHBHAI(HC01083), Private Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/02/2026 11:32:10