High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
S. Sivagami v. Periasamy - CIVIL REVISION PETITION (PD) No.200 of 2003  RD-TN 115 (17 February 2003)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM
CIVIL REVISION PETITION (PD) No.200 of 2003
C.M.P.No.1502 of 2003
S. Sivagami ... Petitioner -Vs-
2. The Original Insurance Company,
Kovai Road, Karur. ... Respondents Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 03.10.2002 made in I.A.No.36 of 2002 in M.C.O.P.No.237 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Karur.
For Petitioner : Mr. P. Valliappan
For Respondents : --
Aggrieved by the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karur, dated 03.10.2002 made in I.A.No.36 of 2002 in M.C.O.P.No.237 of 19 97 amending the main M.C.O.P. petition as stated in the said application, the petitioner, owner of the vehicle in question, has preferred the above revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. It is seen that the first respondent herein- claimant has filed I.A.No.36 of 2002 in M.C.O.P.No.237 of 1997 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend the main M.C.O.P. petition with regard to the medical expenses. It is further seen that the first respondent originally claimed a sum of Rs.8,00,0 00/- as compensation and subsequently, filed an application to enhance the amount of compensation. When the said application was allowed by the Tribunal, it is stated that while carrying out the amendment, the first respondent herein inadvertently failed to amend the compensation amount claimed for the medical treatment, which necessitated him to file the present application. The application was objected to by the petitioner herein on the sole reason that there was delay in carrying out the amendment and the same cannot be permitted at this stage. The Tribunal, after observing that even if the application is allowed, it is for the applicant therein to prove that he is entitled for compensation for the amount proposed to be corrected, allowed the said application.
3. As rightly observed by the Court below, even after allowing the said application, it is for the applicant therein (the first respondent herein) to substantiate and prove his claim. In such circumstances, I do not find any error of law or jurisdiction for interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.1502 of 2003 is also dismissed.
The Sub Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Karur. sml.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.