KURUVILA Vs. SOUTHERN ROADWAYS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a motor accident which happened on 9-6-1974, the appellant sustained injuries. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.33,000/- as compensation and directed the owner and driver of lorry TNE 421 to pay the awarded sum with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim petition. Dissatisfied with the amount awarded, this appeal has been filed by the appellant.

(2.) The appellant and his wife were travelling in a taxi car along the National Highway. As the car reached the scene of accident, the lorry, which came from the opposite direction collided with the taxi car. Among the injuries which appellant sustained, the serious one was a penetrating injury in his left eye, besides a lacerated wound starting from root of nose extending up to the left eyebrow, cutting the upper eyelid. He filed the claim petition on 21-11-1979 with an application to condone delay, claiming an amount of Rs.33,000/-. The delay was condoned and the claim petition was entertained by the Claims Tribunal, and finally awarded the sum claimed in the petition.

(3.) The grievance of the appellant is that the Claims Tribunal has improperly dismissed his application to amend the claim petition. The application for amendment was filed on 28-11-1980 in which the appellant sought to amend the claim amount from Rs.33,000/- to Rs.1,08,000/-. The application was dismissed, for which the Claims Tribunal has given reasons in the award. The main reason is that the application for amendment has not been filed within six months of the date of accident and hence the amendment application does not merit entertainment. According to the Claims Tribunal, "a valuable right has been accrued to the opposite party as a result of limitation and this Tribunal will not be justified in allowing the amendment resulting in enhancement of the claim". This reasoning of the Claims Tribunal is severely assailed by the learned counsel for appellant. He cited the decision of this court in Mathew Alexander v. Sreedharan Pillai ( 1989 (2) KLT 468 ) in which a Division Bench of this Court held that inasmuch as O.6 R.17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') is made applicable to proceedings before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal the mere fact that the claim was barred on the date of application for amendment is no ground for rejecting the same. The Division Bench took the view that even otherwise Claims Tribunal has power to condone delay in filing the application and hence in appropriate cases, amendment of pleadings can be allowed even after the period of limitation.