Narsing vs V. Chief Engineer M.P.E.B. and Others

U.N. Bhachawat, J.—This is claimant''s revision u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, who has filed a claim petition against the non-applicants for compensation on account of the injuries sustained in a motor accident on 2-2-1966, wherein his right foot was badly injured. The revision is against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 41/66, dated 10.3.1975, whereby it rejected the applicant''s application for amendment in his claim petition so as to raise the amount of claim from Rs. 2,800/- to Rs. 3,800/-.

The said Tribunal has rejected the applicant''s application on the ground that the application was belated and nothing has been mentioned in the applicant''s application for amendment as to what were the subsequent events which necessitated the amendment in question.

The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that still the evidence of the claims is not over and in the application the grounds as to why this amendment became necessary have also been mentioned.

The learned Counsel for the non-applicant Mr. Dandvate, in his counter argument, submitted that the question of amendment is in the discretion of the Tribunal and the Tribunal having exercised its discretion, it cannot be interfered with in revision.

In the application for amendment, it is stated that applicant''s treatment of the injury received in the accident continued till the date of the filing of the application, in which he incurred huge expenses ; suffered mental pain and also could not prosecute his studies. It is also stated that his injured foot could not perfectly be cured and has become useless due to which he has been deprived of good services also.

The claim petition was required to be filed within the stipulated period of two months and it can well be conceived that at that time the applicant could not have forestalled the extent of the period of treatment, the quantum of expenses and the ultimate extent of the cure after the treatment. Under these circumstances, the application for amendment is bonafide. It is a different matter whether the applicant would be able to substantiate and be entitled on merits to this enhanced claim or not.

Still the evidence on behalf of the applicant is going on. The evidence of the non-applicant is yet to begin. The application cannot be said to be belated in the circumstances of the case and no prejudice is likely to be caused to the non-applicants as they will have an opportunity to amend their written statement and lead evidence in rebuttal.

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed a material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in disallowing the amendment in question.

In the result, this revision merits to be allowed and is accordingly allowed, the impugned order is set a side and the amendment application (I. A. No. 5), dated 20-2-1975 of the applicant is allowed subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 75/- to the non-applicants. I make no order as to costs.