Ishwar Singh & Anr. v. Sanjiv Kumar & Ors.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. RK Rana, Advocate, for the petitioners L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No. 25575.CII of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. CM No. 25576.CII of 2012 The application is allowed and Annexures P/1 to P/3 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. CR No. 6008 of 2012 Claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (in short, the Tribunal), who are parents of the deceased, have approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Civil Revision No. 6008 of 2012 (O&M) -2- Constitution of India to assail order dated 18.9.2012 passed by the Tribunal thereby dismissing application Annexure P/2 moved by the claimants for amendment of their claim petition Annexure P/1. Claimants have filed claim petition Annexure P/1 under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, the Act) claiming compensation for the death of their son Jagmohan caused in a motor vehicular accident.

By way of amendment, the claimants want to convert the claim petition into that under section 166 of the Act instead of section 163-A of the Act. Only change of section in the title of the claim petition is sought to be made by proposed amendment. Respondent no. 3 Insurance Company opposed the amendment application by filing reply Annexure P/3. It appears that respondent no. 6 Insurance Company also opposed the application by filing reply. Learned Tribunal vide impugned order dated 18.9.2012 dismissed the claimants' application for amendment of the claim petition. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have filed this revision petition. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioners contended that only section of the Act is to be changed in the heading of the claim petition by proposed amendment and the same should, therefore, be allowed. The contention is Civil Revision No.

6008 of 2012 (O&M) -3- very attractive on first blush but on scrutiny thereof in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the contention cannot be accepted. The amendment application was moved after both the parties have concluded their evidence. From the impugned order of the Tribunal, it appears that the claim petition was earlier dismissed in default but was restored. Thereafter also, the claimants did not lead any evidence except that only one witness i.e. claimant no. 1 appeared in the witness box and he is not eye witness of the accident. The claim petition was filed on 31.1.2006 and the amendment application appears to have been filed in or about September, 2012. The innocuous amendment in the impugned order can certainly be allowed if it is bonafide. However, under the garb of proposed amendment of claim petition, the claimants wants to reopen the trial of the case by securing further opportunity to lead evidence to fill up lacuna in their case.

This is not permissible under the garb of amendment of claim petition. The proposed amendment is thus result of malafide intention and oblique motive of the claimants. In the aforesaid context, it is significant to notice that at the outset, I asked the counsel for the petitioners that the proposed amendment could be considered to be allowed provided the claimants do not want to lead any further evidence. However, after seeking instructions, counsel for the petitioners does not want to state that no further evidence is to be led by Civil Revision No. 6008 of 2012 (O&M) -4- the claimants after proposed amendment. It is, thus, manifest that under the garb of innocuous amendment of the claim petition, the claimants want to achieve their oblique motive of filling up lacuna in their case and want to reopen the trial of the case by getting opportunity to lead further evidence. This oblique and indirect objective of the claimants cannot be allowed to be achieved under the garb of amendment application.

In view of the aforesaid discussion and peculiar facts of the instant case, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. The impugned order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. October 09, 2012 'dalbir' ( L.N. Mittal ) Judge