High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Bilas v. A.D.J. - WRIT - C No. 754 of 1991  RD-AH 7542 (24 April 2007)
Civil Revision No.774 of 1991
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sri Sobaran Singh and others
Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.
List revised. No one appears for the respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
This revision is directed against order dated 26.08.1991 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/VIth A.D.J., Etah in Motor Accident Claims Case No.04 of 1989 (Sobaran Singh Vs. Deoki Nandan). Through impugned order, application of applicants seeking amendment in the original claim petition has been allowed. Copy of the original claim petition is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. At three or four places, in the claim petition, it was mentioned that deceased Rajendra Singh was travelling in the bus. Through amendment, it was stated that deceased Rajendra Singh was not travelling in the bus but was standing on the road and was crushed by the bus in question, i.e. Bus No. U.P.T. 1638. Even in the application under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act for grant of interim compensation, copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition, it was mentioned that deceased was travelling in the bus. It was contended by the Insurance Company-applicant before the Tribunal as well as this Court that in case Rajendra Singh was travelling in the bus and died due to rash and negligent driving of the bus then Insurance Company would be liable to pay the awarded amount only to the extent of Rs.15,000/-. However, if a person, who is not travelling in the bus, is crushed by the bus due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, then Insurance Company would be liable for payment of awarded compensation to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/-. Learned counsel has argued that initially applicants of the claim petition were not aware of the said legal position, hence they correctly stated that deceased was travelling in the bus. However, when they got the legal advice regarding extent of liability by Insurance Company, they filed amendment application.
In my opinion, court below committed an error of jurisdiction in allowing the amendment application. Absolutely no reason was given in the amendment application for mentioning in the original claim petition, the fact that deceased was travelling in the bus. Not one but at several places, it was stated that deceased was travelling in the bus. The said assertion was in the nature of admission, which could benefit Insurance Company to a great extent, hence it could not be withdrawn. Moreover, the changed position sought to be taken through amendment completely changed the nature of allegations in the original claim petition, hence it could not be allowed to be substituted.
Accordingly, revision is allowed. Impugned order is set aside.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.