JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order made in I.A.No.50 of 2012 in M.C.O.P.No.152 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Gingee, whereby the petitioners' application filed seeking for amendment of the claim petition with regard to their age was rejected. 2. Notice was ordered to the respondent by this Court on 24.07.2012 and the same was served on. However he has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel and the respondent's name is printed in the cause list. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 4. It is seen that on 18.05.2009 the first petitioner's husband and other petitioners' father died in a road accident. Consequently the claim petition filed by the petitioners has been considered in a Lok Adalat on 21.10.2011, wherein the respondent herein was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,10,000/- towards the compensation amount to the petitioners. It is seen that the said amount was deposited by the respondent on 17.11.2011 and the same was also paid to the petitioners on 12.01.2012 by way of a cheque. However, the same was immediately received back from the petitioners by the Court below by stating that there is difference of age of the petitioners seen in the pleadings. Consequently an application in I.A.No.50 of 2012 came to be filed by the petitioners to amend the age referred to in the claim petition of the petitioners. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, the petitioners stated that their counsel has not given the correct age while filing the claim petition. It is seen from the endorsement made by the respondent herein in the said I.A.No.50 of 2012 that the application may be allowed after verification of the documents filed by the petitioners and if the Court feels so fit. 5. The Court below has dismissed the application without assigning any reason by three words order stating the petition is dismissed. It is seen that the petitioners have enclosed the Voters Identity Card in support of their claim for amending the age in the claim petition. I failed to understand as to how such application filed by the petitioners can be dismissed mechanically without assigning any reasons. It is seen that the petitioners have enclosed the Voters Identity Card in support of their claim for amending the age in the claim petition. I failed to understand as to how such application filed by the petitioners can be dismissed mechanically without assigning any reasons. It is an amendment petition sought to correct the age in the claim petition and when the petitioners have come forward with such application and filed some supporting documents, the Court below has passed a non-speaking order without considering anything on merits, which is not justifiable. Accordingly the same is liable to be set aside. 6. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the Court below is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below for re-hearing I.A.No.50 of 2012 on merits. It is open to the petitioners to adduce any further materials also to prove their age. The Court below is directed to dispose of the said I.A.No.50 of 2012 on merits by passing a speaking and detailed order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since the matter is remitted back to the Court below, the respondent shall also be given sufficient opportunity to put forth their case before the Court below if they so choose. There shall be no order as to cost.