Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AMIT KUMAR DUBEY versus STATE OF U.P.& OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Amit Kumar Dubey v. State Of U.P.& Others - WRIT - C No. 14292 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 12456 (28 July 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 3.2.2005 passed by Addl. District Judge, Varanasi in MACT No.107 of 2000, Annexure-6 to the writ petition.  

The petitioner has filed a claim petition for compensation to the tune of Rs.23,34,345.00. The same is numbered as Claim Petition No.107 of 2000. The claim petition was filed mentioning Sections 163-A/166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. On the basis of an advice of the counsel Section 166 was deleted on an application filed by the petitioner and on the basis of the order passed by the Court. Subsequently, it appears that Section 166 has wrongly been deleted. Therefore, the petitioner submitted an application with a request that by mistake Section 166 was deleted and the same may be added deleting Section 163-A or incorporating Section 166. The said application on an objection of the Insurance Company has been rejected by the impugned order. The Tribunal has taken a view that as earlier application for deleting a particular section has already been allowed, therefore, now this application cannot be allowed and taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, the application filed by the petitioner has been rejected vide its order dated 3.2.2005. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner has approached this Court.

Notices were issued and counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, as such the writ petition is being decided finally with the consent of the parties.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.P.N. Raj, Advocate holding the brief of Sri A.B. Saran and I have perused the record. There is no dispute that earlier an application was filed deleting Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act but it has clearly been stated by the petitioner that on the advice of the counsel, the same has been done. It is well settled that amendment can be allowed at any stage if it does not change the nature of the suit or the relief claimed. By deleting or inserting Section 166, in my opinion, it will not affect the merit of the claim petition.

In view of the aforesaid fact the order dated 3.2.2005, Annexure-5 to the writ petition passed by Additional District Judge, Varanasi acting as the Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal is hereby set aside and the Claims Tribunal is directed to decide the claim petition treating it that the application has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

28.7.2006

V.Sri/-

W.P.No. 14292 of 2005


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.