Madan Lal vs Chimman Singh and Others

K.K. Verma, J.—Counsel for the parties are heard on the merits of the revision petition.

The claimant''s mother Bundabai preferred a claim petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act on 25.2.1985, on the death of her husband, Ochha Ram, in a road accident. Bundabai died during the pendency of the claim proceedings. The co-claimant, the present petitioner, attained majority. He made an application for leave to amend the claim petition so as to show that his father Ochha Ram was not only a labourer but a cleaner of the vehicle. That application was rejected by the First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, on 5.7.1989.

The learned Member rejected the application saying that there are no provisions in the CPC to enable the petitioner who has attained majority to change the nature of the averments in the pleadings set by his erstwhile next friend. The second ground is that the omission of the next friend to make the pleading goes against the bona fides of the proposed amendment. The application for leave to amend the claim petition has to be considered in the light of the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. An amendment cannot be refused on the ground that there is a doubt about the truth or otherwise of an averment in a pleading, which has to be ascertained on receiving evidence.

Hence, the learned First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal acted irregularly in the exercise of its jurisdiction by rejecting the application. The order passed by it on 5.7.1989 is set aside and the amendment is allowed after settling a sum of Rs. 50/- as costs to be shared half and half between owners and the insurance company. The costs be paid within a month. There shall be no orders as to costs of the revision proceeding.