Jaswinder Kaur vs New India Assurance Company

Bakhshish Kaur, J.—Petitioner''s prayed for amendment of the petit ion under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was dismissed by the learned Motor Acciden! Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur, vide impugned order, hence this revision petition.

Petitioners filed a petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for claiming compensation from the respondents as Gurdip Singh had died in an accident on account of rash and negligent act of respondents No. 1 and 2.

The filing of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been necessitated as, according to the petitioners, inadvertently at the time of filing the claim petition they could not disclose the registration No. of the tractor trolley which was later on disclosed by respondents No. 1 and 2 in their writfen statement. It is, therefore, prayed that they may be allowed to add the number PB-07-B-0757 because the registration number was allotted later on, whereas the insurance was got done by the owner by writing the engine number and chassis number.

I have heard Shri Parveen Kumar, counsel for the petitioner, Shri Harsh Aggarwal, counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri H.K. Aurora, counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3.

Originally the petitioners had made reference to the tractor trolley, as according to them, a trolley loaded with long ballis of eucalyptus trees was parked in the middle of the road. The ballis were lying outside 3 to 4 feet of the trolley and there was no mark of indication on the back of the trolley nor any arrangement was made for parking the trolley loaded with ballis. Gurdip Singh was driving the scooter at a very slow speed. A vehicle came from the opposite side, The approaching vehicle flashed the head lights. Thus, Gurdip Singh as well as the pillion rider could not see the parked trolley on the road, with the result, ballis struck against Gurdip Singh and also against the body of Hardip Singh, who was one of the pillion riders. Gurdip Singh died on the spot, whereas Hardip Singh and Pawan Kumar were admitted in the hospital.

The trolley is owned by respondent No. 1. It was parked on the road as its tyre got punctured. By proposed amendment, the petitioners simply wanl to identify the trolley by describing the registration number of the tractor trolley as PB-07-B-0757.

The learned Tribunal had disallowed the proposed amendment simply on the ground that the claimant has taken a categorical plea that trolley was involved the accident and now he cannot be allowed to withdraw the admission by adding that the tractor trolley in- vqlved bears registration No. PB-07-B- 0757. To my mind, this reasoning is totally without merit. It is a matter of common knowledge that the trolleys are not given or allotted separate registration numbers rather a trolley being integral part of the tractor, would certainly be identified with the registration number of the tractor belonging to the owner in whose name it has been registered.

For the aforesaid reasons, the proposed amendment being not inconsistent with the pleas already taken up by the claimants, rather, in order to determine the real controversy between the parties, the proposed amendment is necessary.

In view of the aforesaid, this revision petition is allowed. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the petitioners before the learned Tribunal is hereby allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 300/-.

Parties through theircounsel are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 4.12.2000.

Revision allowed.