DEVAMMA AITHAPPA Vs. S B NAGARAJAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a claimants' appeal. The appellant has filed these applications, LA. IV under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151, C.P.C. praying for permission to amend the claim petition filed before the Tribunal and LA. V, a similar application under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. praying for permission to amend the appeal memo.

(2.) The grounds urged in these applications are common. They are supported by the affidavit of the 1st appellant. She has stated in the affidavit that she is the widow of the deceased Aithappa in this case. She has stated that at the time when the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, she was advised by her Advocate that she cannot claim more than Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation. She has stated since she had lost her husband in the accident at a young age with a minor daughter, she could not think of the amount of compensation which she could claim. It is contended that the Tribunal has given a finding that the earning of her husband was more than Rs. 6,000/- per month but award is granted for Rs. 30,000/- only as compensation and therefore she has preferred this appeal. She has stated that in view of this finding, since the appellant can get more than Rs. 6,00,000/- as compensation, the claim made by her as Rs. 2,00,000/- in the claim petition needs to be amended. She has stated that she claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- only due to inadvertent advice of her Advocate in the Trial Court. It is contended that the delay in filing these applications is not intentional but for bona fide reasons. She has stated if the amendments are not allowed she would be put to hardship. Hence this application.

(3.) The 3rd respondent has filed common objections to these applications. In the objection statement, the 3rd respondent has contended the appellant has presumed that the Tribunal has given a finding that the earning of the deceased was Rs. 6,000/- per month. It is stated that the Tribunal has only stated in para 5 of the judgment that the income from the shop earning have been Rs. 4,000/- per month. It is contended that this cannot be taken as earnings of the deceased at par with the salary earning of a person, it is only the loss of service of the deceased to the family which is to be considered and therefore the Tribunal has properly decided the matter. It is contended that the claimants have after lapse of 8 long years sought an amendment of the claim petition, and the appeal memo. The 3rd respondent has denied the other allegations in the applications and has prayed for the dismissal of the same.