Yadunandan and Others vs Mansha Devi

Manoj Kumar Gupta, J—Mansha Devi, the respondent filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of death of her husband in a motor accident. In the claim petition, the date of accident of her husband was disclosed as 19 December, 2002. The claim petition was filed on 30 May, 2003. Initially, it was decreed by an award dated 24 April, 2010. Subsequently, on an application filed by the petitioners, who are the owners of the offending vehicle, the ex parte award was set aside and the proceedings of the claim petition were restored to its original number. After the proceedings in the claim petition were resumed, the claimant respondent filed an application Paper No. 104-Ka seeking amendment in the claim petition to the effect that wherever the date of accident has been mentioned as 19 December, 2002, the same be substituted with the date 19 November, 2002. It is stated in the application that the mistake in that regard is a typographical error. The application was opposed by the petitioners. The Tribunal by an order dated 21 May, 2015 allowed the amendment application. While allowing the amendment application, the Tribunal took into consideration the post-mortem report, which is dated 20 November, 2002 and thus, concluded that the date of accident mentioned in the claim petition as 19 December, 2002 seems to be typographical error. The petitioners have now approached this Court challenging the order of the Tribunal allowing the amendment application. Concededly, the post-mortem report is dated 20 November, 2002. If the date of accident is assumed to be 19 December, 2002, it would mean that the post-mortem was done, even before the accident, which is not possible. Thus, on the face of it, the date of accident mentioned in the claim petition is incorrect. It is apparently a typographical error.

However, learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the mistake in question was not a typographical error as the claimant in her testimony had also mentioned the date of accident as 19 December, 2002. It is further pointed out that even the same date has been mentioned in the notice sent by her to the police.

Be that as it may, the correctness of the amendment, which is sought by a party is not to be adjudged while deciding the amendment application. It is always open to the petitioners to file their additional written statement in response to the amended petition and raise all possible pleas and which shall thereafter be decided by the Tribunal in accordance with law. On such ground, no interference is required with the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no provision for permitting a party to amend the pleadings.

Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribes the jurisdiction and powers of claims Tribunal. Sub-section (1) provides that in holding an inquiry under section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. Sub-section (2) invests a Tribunal with all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taming evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents, a perusal of section 169 reveals that the Legislature had deliberately not made all provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has to adopt such summary procedure, as it thinks fit.

The State of Uttar Pradesh has framed U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998. Rule 221 thereof makes only certain provisions of the First Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to the proceedings under the Act. These are Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30 of Order V; Order IX; Rules 3 to 10 of Order XIII; Rules 2 to 21 of Order XVI; Order XVII and Rules 1 to 3 of Order XXIII. The provisions of Order VI, Rule 17 have not been made applicable. It does not mean that the Tribunal will not have the power to permit a party to amend the claim petition. To the contrary, the Tribunal is fully competent to permit a party to correct the error in the pleading and for such purpose, even the rigour of Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. would not be attracted. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Tribunal. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.