Pochamma and others vs Mirza Dawood Baig and another

This civil revision petition is directed against the order in IA No.792 of 1997 dated 27-8-1997 in OP No.289 of 1996 on the 61e of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Mcdak at Sangareddy, refusing amendment of claim petition so as to enhance the claim from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.3,50,000/-.

The revision petitioners are the claimants in OP No.289 of 1996 wherein they sought for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-for the death of late Ramulu who was husband of the revision petitioner No. 1 and the grandfather of revision petitioners 3 to 5 and the father-in-law of revision petitioner No.2. During the pendency of the OP, they sought for enhancement of compensation to Rs.3,50,000/- by way of amendment under Order VI, Rule 17 read with 151 CPC.

The amendment petition has been opposed by the owner and insurer of the vehicle in question.

The learned Tribunal considered the rival contentions and held that the revision petitioners did not specify any reasons or grounds for the enhancement of compensation and hence it dismissed the petition. Hence, the revision petition.

Sri M. Raja Malla Reddy, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners, strenuously contended that they are illiterate village rustics and hence they are not aware of their rights and hence there was an error in quantifying their claim. He contended that the amendment petition should have been allowed by the learned Tribunal. He relied on the Full Bench judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jai Singh and another v. N.A. Subramaniam and another 1983 ACJ 1 and the judgment of this Court in Thulluri Ruthomma and Others Vs. S. Bala Kotaiah and Others, .

On the other hand Sri S. Hanumaiah, learned Counsel for the respondents opposed the civil revision petition and according to him, there is no material to consider the amendment petition.

I carefully considered the contentions of both sides. A reading of the petition would go to show that all the claimants are illiterate persons and they hail from rural areas. Their predicament can be visualised easily, so much so that they relied upon some middlemen or the concerned Advocate in drafting their claim petition. I, therefore, find force in the contention of Sri Raja Malla Reddy that the claim was not properly set up by them.

The only question that arises for consideration is whether the claimants can seek for enhancement of claim during the pendency of the claim petition. This question was considered by the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in judgment cited supra and it is held :

"23. After having arrived at the aforesaid conclusion, it has now to be seen as to what principles should be kept in mind by the Tribunal while dealing with the application for amendment. In my view this matter should not detain us much nor is it necessary to dilate upon it in depth as it would suffice to observe that while dealing with the question of amendment of an application made within the period of limitation, i.e., within the period prescribed for filing a claim application, the Tribunal should ordinarily allow the amendment which is necessary for the purpose of deciding the claim application of the injured or the legal representatives of the deceased. But where an application is made after the expiry of the period of limitation, then the Tribunal must require sufficient cause and in the event of being satisfied drat sufficient cause exists, the Tribunal would be well within its jurisdiction to allow the amendment after the period of limitation."

Turning to the facts of the case on hand, it may be seen that no period of limitation is prescribed for claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The accident in this case occurred in 1995 and the provisions of 1988 Act came into force. When there is no limitation prescribed for filing the claim petition, Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that no reasons need be assigned for seeking such an amendment. It is seen from the above judgment that sufficient cause has to be shown only after the expiry of the period of limitation, but, since there is no period of limitation under the present Act, no reasons are necessary. Hence, the order of the learned Tribunal stating that no reasons have been assigned by the revision petitioners for the amendment sought for cannot be sustained. In this context, the judgment cited supra has gone a step further and it is held:

"It may also happen in certain cases that on account of ignorance or otherwise a party may not apply for higher compensation. If, however, the Tribunal feels at any state that the party is entitled to make an application for the same in writing and a copy of the application should be served on the opposite party to enable it to contest the claim for higher amount."

Following the above judgments, I have no hesitation to hold that the claimants are entitled to seek amendment of a claim so as to enhance the claim of compensation not only before the Primary Tribunal but also before the appellate authority.

For the above reasons, the civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and consequently IA No.792 of 1997 is allowed. The lower Court is directed to permit the petitioners to carry out the amendment substituting the figure Rs.3,50,000/-wherever the figure Rs.2,00,000/- occurs. There will be no order as to costs.