SANTHOSH K.R. AND ORS. Vs. AZEEZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An amendment application filed on 04/08/2014 was taken up on 05/08/2014 and allowed on the same day. On 05/08/2014, the Tribunal was not even sitting, since it was the day specified for settlement. The petitioners, who were the respondents in the claim, before the Tribunal, has moved the above original petition on the ground that the amendment was allowed without granting an opportunity to file objection and without hearing them. The claim was originally filed for a compensation of Rs. 60,000/- for 5 injuries which is sought to be amended and enhanced to Rs. 6,00,000/- for 10 injuries. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contends that there could be no amendment made to the averment regarding injuries as such, for it should have been placed on record at the first point itself. The number of the vehicle in which the claimant is said to have been traveling, when the accident occurred is also sought to be amended. The amendment sought, could not have been permitted is the specific contention raised by the petitioners.

(2.) This Court called for a report from the Tribunal, on the admission of the above original petition. Besides the afore stated admitted facts, the Tribunal has gone on record that, due to the pendency of cases, amendment applications are allowed straight away on receipt of notice, by the respondents; if there is no endorsement of objection. It is also stated that the said procedure is the practice that is being adopted in all the cases, in that forum, especially those which are included in the special list for disposal; which are cases included in the target, by the Honourable High Court for urgent disposal.

(3.) Essentially it is to be noticed that the forum, whichever it may be, and howsoever high it might be, cannot device a procedure for itself, by which the respondents are not granted an opportunity to file an objection and afforded a hearing. As long as there is no procedural requirement that there should be an endorsement of objection in the application, there cannot be a system devised by the Tribunal for itself; which would run contrary to accepted practices, as regulated by fair procedure and the rules framed.