Manoj Misra, J.— Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rajesh Rai for the respondents 2 to 4 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1. By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 22nd September, 1999, passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Jhansi/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in Motor Accident claim case no.214 of 1995, whereby the amendment application of the claimant-respondents seeking amendment in the claim petition has been allowed on payment of cost of Rs.50/-. The facts, in brief, are that a claim petition was filed by the claimant-respondents 2 to 4 against Ram Kumar (petitioner no.1) in respect of the death of one Jhunde Lal, who allegedly met with an accident on 15th June, 1995 while traveling on a tractor trolley driven by Ram Kumar (petitioner no.1). In the claim petition, it appears that registration number of the tractor was not recorded and the name of the tractor owner was also not disclosed. Consequently, an application was filed, purportedly, under Order VI, Rule 17, read with Section 151, of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment of the tractor owner, namely, Ram Swaroop (petitioner no.2) as also for incorporation of the description of the tractor with registration number MPA 8587. An objection was filed to this amendment application by Ram Kumar stating therein that in the statement of the witnesses, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., during the course of investigation of the criminal case which was registered pursuant to the FIR, the number of the tractor was disclosed as MPA 6587 and in the claim petition also, in paragraph 15, the registration nuv mber of the tractor was disclosed as 6587, which was later scored off, therefore, the amendment was not justified, particularly, when it was being sought after a period of four years. The Tribunal allowed the application for amendment on payment of cost of Rs.50/- against which the present writ petition has been filed. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order allowing the amendment is a non-speaking order as it does not take into consideration the objection filed by the petitioner no.1. It has also been submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioner no.2 before allowing the amendment application. It has further been submitted that the application for amendment is highly belated. It has also been submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioner no.2 before allowing the amendment application. It has further been submitted that the application for amendment is highly belated. In addition to above, it has been submitted that the criminal case, which was registered pursuant to the accident being case crime no.150 of 1995, police station Gursarai, district Jhansi, under Section 279/304-A IPC, has resulted in acquittal, therefore, there would be no useful purpose to continue with the claim proceedings. It has also been submitted that in the criminal case, it appears from the judgment that the prosecution case was that the accident occurred involving tractor MPA 6587 and not MPA 8587, which has been sought to be introduced by way of amendment. It has also been submitted that the petitioner had filed a second amendment application (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition) after getting the first amendment application not pressed on 20.8.1999, as would be evident from order dated 20.8.1999 (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition), wherein it was stated that the number of tractor be changed from MPA 6582 to MPA 8587. It has thus been submitted that by allowing the amendment, the nature of the case has changed. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 submitted that the nature of the case did not change by allowing the amendment and since law does not provide limitation for filing the claim petition, no serious prejudice was caused to the other side by allowing the amendment application. It has been submitted that in the original claim petition no registration number of the tractor was disclosed. It has been contended that only one amendment application was filed, which was for incorporating the tractor number as well as for impleadment of its owner. It has been submitted that no other application, as has been appended as Annexure No.5 to the writ petition, was filed. It has thus been submitted that by allowing the amendment application, there is no change in the nature of the case originally pleaded by the claimant. It has also been submitted that from the order dated 20.8.1999 (Annexure No.4 to the petition) it does not appear that any application was got dismissed as not pressed on that day. It has thus been submitted that by allowing the amendment application, there is no change in the nature of the case originally pleaded by the claimant. It has also been submitted that from the order dated 20.8.1999 (Annexure No.4 to the petition) it does not appear that any application was got dismissed as not pressed on that day. It only reflects that a date i.e. 22.09.1999, was fixed for hearing on the application on account of an objection to it made by the opposite party. It has further been submitted that there were cogent reasons for non-disclosure of the correct tractor number as well as the name of registered owner of the tractor earlier, inasmuch as, the information was received only after police inquiry. It has also been submitted that mere acquittal in the criminal case does not mean that the claimant is not entitled to compensation as the degree of proof to establish criminal liability is much higher than what is required in a claim based on tort. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties as also on perusal of record the Court finds that in the objection (Annexure no.6 to the petition), which has been submitted by the petitioner no.1, to the amendment application, in paragraph 4 it has been mentioned that in the original claim petition, by mischief, the tractor number MPA 6587 has been scored off. Copy of the original claim petition, which has been enclosed as Annexure No.2 also does not disclose the tractor number. In such circumstances, it does not appear that the original claim petition carried the registration number of the tractor concerned. Even otherwise, it will be open for the Court below to consider all these aspects at the time of taking final decision on the claim petition after recording of evidence. It is well settled that at the time of consideration of an amendment application, the merits of the plea sought to be incorporated by way of amendment is not to be considered, as merits can only be judged after recording of evidence on the issues or points involved for adjudication (vide (2006) 4 SCC 385 : Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs. K.K. Modi; (2007) 6 SCC 167 : Andhra Bank Vs. A.B.N. Amro Bank NV; and (2008) 3 SCC 717 : Usha Devi Vs. Rijwan Ahmed). K.K. Modi; (2007) 6 SCC 167 : Andhra Bank Vs. A.B.N. Amro Bank NV; and (2008) 3 SCC 717 : Usha Devi Vs. Rijwan Ahmed). What is required, at this stage, is to see whether by allowing the amendment, the nature of the case changes or not as also whether the other party against whom the amendment is allowed, is seriously prejudiced either on account of claiming of certain reliefs, which may have otherwise become barred by time, or on account of retraction of some admissions that may have come on record. For a motor accident claim, now, on deletion of sub section (3) to section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by Act No.53 of 1994, there is no limitation, therefore, even if there has been some delay in impleading the tractor owner, the claim against him could still have been made, accordingly, he cannot claim prejudice on that ground. So far as the change in nature of the case is concerned, in the instant case, the nature of the case does not change, inasmuch as, the claim petition arises out of an accident involving a tractor, wherein the driver of the tractor was impleaded and the proceedings against him were drawn. Whether the accident occurred involving tractor no.6587 or 8587, that is a question which relates to the merits of the claim and is to be answered at the time when final decision is taken on the claim petition after recording the evidence of the parties. It is also not relevant, at this stage, that the criminal case instituted on account of the incident has resulted in acquittal. This may be a piece of evidence, the relevance of which is to be tested during the course of the proceedings in the claim petition. It is well settled that acquittal in a criminal case cannot be taken as a ground to non-suit the claimant of compensation based on tort, inasmuch as the degree of proof required for conviction in a criminal case is much greater than what it is required while assessing a claim based on tort. It is well settled that acquittal in a criminal case cannot be taken as a ground to non-suit the claimant of compensation based on tort, inasmuch as the degree of proof required for conviction in a criminal case is much greater than what it is required while assessing a claim based on tort. So far as the submission that notice of the amendment application was not issued to the petitioner no.2 is concerned, suffice it to say that it is only after the amendment is allowed that the petitioner no.2 would be impleaded as a party, and it is expected that, thereafter, notice will be sent to him for answering the claim. No doubt, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is non speaking and it was expected of it to assign brief reasons, particularly, when there was an objection to the amendment application. However, for the detailed reasons recorded above, I do not find it to be fit case to set aside the order of the Tribunal only on the ground that it did not assign reasons. For the reasons detailed above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands discharged. Considering that the matter has remained pending for more than a decade, it is expected that the Tribunal concerned will try and expeditiously conclude the claim proceedings in accordance with the law. _____________