Judgment ( 1. ) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 19/9/2011 passed by MACT, Kukshi in claim case No.31/11 whereby the application filed by the respondent No.3 for amendment in pleadings was allowed, the present petition has been filed. Short facts of the case are that petitioner filed a petition for compensation on account of death of Mangilal in a motor accident. It was alleged that offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. The case was contested by the respondent No.3 on various grounds. After framing of issues and recording of evidence of the parties, at the fag end an application for amendment was filed by the respondent No.3 which was allowed, against which the petition has been filed. ( 2. ) LEARNED counsel for petitioner submits that impugned order passed by learned tribunal is illegal and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that right from beginning it was disputed that offending vehicle was insured with respondent NO.3 and liability was avoided on the ground that deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle unauthorisedly while by the proposed amendment after recording of statement of witnesses of respondent No.3 it is alleged that offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 and it is only one person who was injured of which the liability was covered. It is submitted that at such a belated stage learned tribunal committed error in allowing the application. It is submitted that facts stated in the proposed amendment application have already been stated by the witnesses who were examined on behalf of respondent No.3. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Baldev Singh Vs. Manohar Singh, AIR 2006 SC 2832 wherein it was held that "application for amendment of written statement shall not be allowed when trial of suit has already commenced. Commencement of trial as used in proviso must be understood in limited sense as meaning final hearing of suit, examination of witnesses, filing of documents and addressing of arguments." Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Vidyabai Vs. Padmalatha, 2009 AIR SCW 899 wherein it was held that Trial commences on date issues are framed. Amendment of written statement was sought after plaintiff had filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. It was held that grant of leave by High Court to amend written statement is liable to be set aside. Padmalatha, 2009 AIR SCW 899 wherein it was held that Trial commences on date issues are framed. Amendment of written statement was sought after plaintiff had filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. It was held that grant of leave by High Court to amend written statement is liable to be set aside. Moreover Trial Court's order refusing amendment neither suffered from jurisdictional error nor any error of law and interference with order in writ jurisdiction is improper. ( 3. ) LEARNED counsel submits that learned tribunal committed error of law in allowing the application which is contrary to the proviso of Rule 17 of Order VI, therefore petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. ( 4. ) MR. R.J. Pandit, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that respondent NO.3 is the Insurance Company. Since the documents were not traceable therefore specific plea could not be taken which has been taken in the amendment application. It is submitted that only because the trial has commenced, the application filed by respondent No.3 could not have been dismissed. Reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Usha Balashaheb Swami Vs. Kiran Appasao Swami, 2004 MPLJ 31, wherein Hon. Apex Court has observed that Court should be liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side or on the ground that the prayer for amendment was not a bona fide one. It was further held that in case whether the amendment of written statement is allowed by the trial court on consideration of the principles of law and material on record, reversing the order of trial court by High Court is not justified. ( 5. ) FURTHER reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Surender Kumar Sharma Vs. Makhan Singh, (2009) 10 SCC 626 wherein Hon. Apex Court held that belated application for amendment of plaint is not liable to be rejected merely on the ground of delay, if Court finds that by allowing application real controversy between the parties may be resolved. It was further held that Court can allow the application where opposite party can be compensated by costs or otherwise. It was further held that Court can allow the application where opposite party can be compensated by costs or otherwise. Hon. Apex Court further held that Court has wide discretion to deal with the application in such manner and on such terms which appear it to be just and proper and with a view to do full and complete justice. Lastly reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of South Konkan Distilleries Vs. Prabhakar Gajanan, 2009 SC 1177, wherein Hon. Apex Court observed that Court should be liberal in amendment. It was further held that seeking to rise time barred claim, can even be allowed if it serves cause of justice. ( 6. ) ON the strength of aforesaid position of law learned counsel submits that no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in passing the impugned order. It is submitted that petition be dismissed. ( 7. ) FROM perusal of record, it is evident that the amendment application filed by respondent No.3 goes to route of the case but the same was filed with an inordinate delay at the stage of final arguments. However, since the case in hand is arising out of claim petition wherein provisions of CPC are not strictly applicable and Rule 226 of the M.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 authorizes the tribunal to obtain whatsoever application and documents which may be found necessary from the police, medical and other authorities before proceeding to award claim, therefore, this court is of the view that no illegality has been committed by learned tribunal in allowing the amendment application filed by the respondent NO.3. Keeping in view the fact that it is a death case, therefore amount of cost imposed by the tribunal appears to be on lower side and the same is enhanced to Rs.5000/-. ( 8. ) WITH the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.