Farukh Kha @ Jamaal Khan and Another vs Union of India

U.C. Maheshwari, J.—In the available scenario of the matter instead to hear this petition on admission, with the consent of the parties, the same is heard finally. The petitioners/claimants have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 9.8.12 passed by the Railway Claim Tribunal Bhopal in Claim Case No. 0375/10 whereby their application filed under Order 6 rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the claim petition to amend the concerning train number, has been dismissed.

The petitioners counsel after taking me through the impugned order and the other available papers said that the proposed amendment was only an additional/different approach from the facts which had been stated in the claim petition at the time of filing the same and, therefore, the tribunal ought to have been allowed such application. In continuation he said that their proposed amendment is in consonance with the report of the Railway department but contrary to it, the same has been dismissed by the tribunal under wrong premises and prayed for allowing such amendment application by allowing this petition.

Counsel of the respondent, by justifying the impugned order said that on allowing the impugned amendment application the entire nature of the claim petition shall be changed and in that circumstance the right of the respondent authorities to defend the matter shall be prejudice and prayed for dismissal of this petition.

Having heard, after perusing the petition as well as the impugned order, I am of the considered view that the amendment application Annex. P/2 ought to have been allowed by the tribunal because of the following reasons:-

(a) It is apparent fact that initially the claim was filed by the petitioners regarding death of their son in the alleged untoward accident by the passenger train but at the time of initiation of the claim petition, the number of some other train was mentioned in the claim petition. Subsequently, from the papers of the respondent/department, the petitioner came to know that such untoward accident was happened by some other train and not by the earlier mentioned train number in the claim petition, on which, on the basis of same facts that their son died in untoward train accident as an additional approach or the different approach from the same existing pleadings only to change the number of such train the impugned amendment application was filed.

As per settled proposition of the law whenever any amendment application is moved to amend the pleadings as an additional approach or the different approach from the existing pleadings then the same should be allowed as laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of A.K. Gupta and Sons Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation, . So, in such premises the impugned order of the tribunal is apparently perverse, illegal and also contrary to the propriety of the law.

Consequently, by allowing this petition, the same is set aside and petitioners application for amendment Annex. P/2 is hereby allowed. Counsel is directed to carry out the necessary correction in the claim petition within thirty days from today by placing the certified copy of this order before the tribunal and such tribunal is directed to proceed with the matter after extending the opportunity to amend the written statement/reply to the respondent with consequential amendment. Petition is allowed as indicated above.