Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1512 (MAD)

Superintendent of Police, Madurai v. P. Murugan

2019-06-04

J.NISHA BANU

body2019
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated 27.08.2009 passed in I.A.No.30 of 2007 in M.C.O.P.No.494 of 2002 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/I-Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.) 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/claimant challenging the order, dated 27.08.2009, passed in I.A.No.30 of 2007 in M.C.O.P.No.494 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the Court below dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/claimant seeking to amend the pleadings in the claim petition as well as in the proof affidavit. 2. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner/claimant submitted that on 20.05.1994, the Sub Inspector of Police, Samayanallur Police Station was on Highway Patrol Duty, along with three Police Constables and at about 4.20 a.m. on 20.05.1994 a lorry bearing Registration No.TDY-8969 which came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the backside of the Police Van, due to which all the four Police personnel had sustained grievous injuries and the Police van had also heavily damaged. The said vehicle was renovated by spending Rs.1,22,400/-. Claiming the said amount, the petitioner/claimant filed M.C.O.P.No.494 of 2000. However, in the claim petition, it has been erroneously stated as if the lorry had come in the opposite direction and dashed against the Police vehicle. After commencement of the trial, the said mistake came to the knowledge of the petitioner/claimant and hence, the petitioner/claimant filed I.A.No.30 of 2007 seeking to amend the pleadings in column No.23 of the claim petition and in paragraph No.2 of the proof affidavit, as per the particulars of proposed amendments. The Court below, without properly perusing the affidavit and particulars of proposed amendments, which has been annexed in separate sheet, has erroneously dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner/claimant has not averred the details of the amendment to be made in the petition. 3. He would further submit that in the FIR as well as in the Motor Vehicles Report, it has been clearly stated that the lorry hit the back side of the Police Vehicle. Due to inadvertence, it has been erroneously stated in the claim petition as well as in the proof affidavit that it came to the wrong side and dashed against the Police vehicle. Due to inadvertence, it has been erroneously stated in the claim petition as well as in the proof affidavit that it came to the wrong side and dashed against the Police vehicle. Considering the fact that such amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, the Court below could have liberally considered and allowed the petition. But, the Court below failed to do so. Thus, he prayed to allow this petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/Insurance Company would submit that the amendment petition has been filed by the petitioner/claimant after the commencement of the trial. He would further submit that the amendment petition has been filed by the petitioner/claimant after a period of seven years from the date of filing of the claim petition and the delay for filing the said petition has not been explained by the petitioner/claimant and therefore, the Court below dismissed the amendment petition. Hence, the order passed by the Court below need not be interfered with. Thus, he prayed to dismiss the revision petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records carefully. 6. Under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C., an amendment petition can be filed at any stage of the proceedings. However, if an amendment petition is filed after the commencement of trial, the party who seeks amendment should show that he could not file such amendment petition before the commencement of trial, inspite of his due diligence and the Court may allow such amendment petition on such terms, as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. 7. It is seen from the record that in the FIR, dated 20.05.1994, itself, it is clearly stated that the lorry hit the back side of the Police van. In the Motor Vehicles Report dated 23.05.1994 also, it is clearly stated that the damages to the Police van are in the rear side of the vehicle. 7. It is seen from the record that in the FIR, dated 20.05.1994, itself, it is clearly stated that the lorry hit the back side of the Police van. In the Motor Vehicles Report dated 23.05.1994 also, it is clearly stated that the damages to the Police van are in the rear side of the vehicle. According to the petitioner/claimant, due to inadvertence, in the claim petition as well as in the proof affidavit, it has been mistakenly stated that the lorry came in opposite direction and dashed against the Police van and that only after the examination the petitioner/claimant as PW1, such error crept in the claim petition and in the proof affidavit had come to the notice of the petitioner/claimant. The 3rd respondent has also not pointed out in the counter affidavit to the claim petition anything against such statement. The foregoing discussions would go to show that it is only an inadvertent mistake and not an intentional one. 8. As rightly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant, it is seen that the Court below without even noticing the particulars of proposed amendments has erroneously held that the petitioner/claimant has not mentioned about the particulars of amendment. So far as the delay is concerned, the petitioner/claimant has stated that only after his examination as PW1, the mistake crept in the claim petition as well as in the proof affidavit came to his notice. More over, as stated earlier, the 3rd respondent has also not contradicted such statement in the counter affidavit. As the petitioner/claimant was not brought to the notice about such mistake by the respondents before filing of the amendment petition, this Court is of the view that the submission of the petitioner that only after his examination as PW1, the mistake crept in the claim petition as well as in the proof affidavit came to his notice, can be reasonably accepted. Further, the real questions in controversy between the parties can be decided only by permitting the petitioner/claimant to amend the pleadings in the claim petition as well as in the proof affidavit. No prejudice would be caused to the 3rd respondent in allowing this petition. The Court below, without considering the above aspects, has erroneously dismissed the amendment petition and hence, the order passed by the Court below warrants interference of this Court. 9. No prejudice would be caused to the 3rd respondent in allowing this petition. The Court below, without considering the above aspects, has erroneously dismissed the amendment petition and hence, the order passed by the Court below warrants interference of this Court. 9. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed by the Court below is set aside and I.A.No.30 of 2007 is allowed. It is seen that the MCOP has been pending from 2002 onwards and hence, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is directed to conduct trial on day-to-day basis and dispose of M.C.O.P.No.494 of 2002 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.