JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 10.07.2015 (Annex.5) passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhinmal, Jalore (for short, 'learned Tribunal'), whereby learned Tribunal has allowed application of the respondent-claimant for amendment in the claim petition. 2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent-claimant laid a claim petition under Sections 165 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short Act of 1988') claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,28,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in a road accident. In the claim petition besides owner and driver of the offending vehicle petitioner-insurer was also impleaded as non-applicant. After laying the claim petition, respondent-claimant made endeavour to seek amendment in the claim petition and for that purpose application (Annex.3) was filed, inter-alia, claiming enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs. 77,51,000/-. The prayer made in the application was stoutly opposed by the petitioner-Insurer. Learned Tribunal, by its impugned order Annex. 5 allowed the amendment on payment of cost of Rs. 500/- 3. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Bachhawat has vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal has not examined the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the pleadings and the order impugned is also absolutely vague and cryptic. Learned counsel has also urged that the application seeking amendment in the claim petition is also bereft of material particulars yet the learned Tribunal has granted indulgence to the respondent-claimant. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurdial Singh & Ors. v. Raj Kumar Aneja & Ors. reported in (2002) 2 SCC 445 . 4. In my opinion, in claim petitions, strict rule of pleading and evidence are not applicable and the claim petition are to be decided by the claims Tribunal on the basis of documentary and oral evidence. Claiming a handsome amount of compensation by an incumbent cannot prejudice the cause of the non-applicants including the petitioner-insurer, inasmuch as, quantifying the amount of compensation to be awarded to a victim, or the legal heirs of a deceased, depends on facts of an individual case. The loss of income suffered by individual or bereaved family are some of the circumstances, which are required to be taken into account for determining just compensation. Merely because the respondent-claimant has quantified enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs. The loss of income suffered by individual or bereaved family are some of the circumstances, which are required to be taken into account for determining just compensation. Merely because the respondent-claimant has quantified enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs. 77,51,000/-does not mean that his entitlement for the same is determined by the learned Tribunal. The final adjudication about the amount, for which respondent-claimant is entitled, shall depend on the evidence of rival parties as well as the gravity and magnitude of the injury suffered by him. 5. Well it may be true that the impugned order is not happily worded and so also the application for seeking amendment but then in my considered opinion, the impugned order has not resulted in any miscarriage of justice. Therefore the same is not liable to be tinkered with in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.Resultanly, the petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******