Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 271 (PNJ)

Manju Devi v. Gopal Copy Wale

2002-03-05

M.M.KUMAR

body2002
JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. (Oral) - This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 24.1.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal dismissing the application of the claimants-petitioners filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity, "CPC) seeking amendment of the claim petition whereby the claimants-petitioners sought the incorporation to the array of parties, one Chauhan Sales Corporation, Yamuna Nagar, who was the owner and Nanak Chand, resident of Dadupur, who was driving the offending Trax/Jeep. The application was opposed by respondent No. 1 by setting up all possibilities and accepting the same, the application was dismissed. The principal reason given by the Tribunal for dismissing the application is that nothing has been mentioned in the FIR No. 359 of 19.5.1998. Therefore, it could not be claimed that the offending vehicle belongs to Chauhan Sales Corporation, Yamuna Nagar and was being driven by Nanak Chand. The second objection raised against allowing the amendment is that the claimants-petitioners are still not sure as to whether the offending vehicle owner as well as the driver were the persons who actually caused accident. 2. I have heard Shri Namit Sharma, Advocate for the claimants-petitioners and have perused the documents with his assistance. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Supreme Court has held that the amendment should generally be allowed unless it is shown that permitting amendment would be unjust and would result in prejudice to the opposite party or would deprive him of a right which has accrued to him with the lapse of time. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has relied upon three judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar, 1990(1) Recent Revenue Reports 222, B.K.N. Pillai v. P. Pillai, 2001(1) RCR(Civil) 511 and Dondapati Narayana Reddy v. Duggireddy Venkatanarayana Reddy, 2001(4) RCR(Civil) 473. He has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Gurnam Singh v. Hari Mohan, 2001(1) RCR(Civil) 662. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the claimants-petitioners, I am of the considered opinion that this revision petition deserves to be allowed in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel. He has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Gurnam Singh v. Hari Mohan, 2001(1) RCR(Civil) 662. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the claimants-petitioners, I am of the considered opinion that this revision petition deserves to be allowed in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel. The additional reason for allowing the revision petition and the application of the claimants-petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is that the law concerning award of compensation is a beneficiary piece of legislation which requires to be interpreted in such a manner as to help the claimants- petitioners, rather than interpreting the same in such a way as to restrict the benefits. For that reason also, this revision deserves to allowed. 4. This revision petition is allowed. The application of the claimants- petitioners before the Tribunal also succeeds. The Tribunal is directed to allow the incorporation of the afore-mentioned amendments and incorporation of the parties as pleaded in the application. Revision allowed.