ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL Vs. KURIAN P. CHACKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 2nd respondent in O.P. (M.V.) 681 of 1981 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam is the appellant.

(2.) THE claimant therein one Dr. Kurian P. Chacko, a medical practitioner, met with an accident on 7-5-1981. The claimant was riding a motor cycle and a passenger bus bearing registration No. K.L.R. 7959 hit the motor cycle and the Motor cyclist was thrown away and he sustained serious injuries. The incident happened at Kanattukara on Trichur Kunnamkulam main road. The injured was admitted in the hospital. He was under prolonged treatment. It is said that he is even now undergoing treatment for his injuries. At the relevant time he was employed as a House Surgeon in the District Hospital, Trichur. He claimed a sum of Rs. 1,29,776.83 as compensation. The Tribunal awarded the entire amount as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from 4-11-1981 till realisation.

(3.) THE claimant has filed a cross objection alleging that he had filed, an application for amendment of the petition to incorporate an additional claim and the same was dismissed by the Claims Tribunal. In the cross objection it has been alleged that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the amendment application. The reason for dismissing the amendment application was that the claim put forward therein was barred by limitation It is true that bar of limitation alone is not a ground for refusing the amendment. In the instant case the petitioner had preferred the claim considering all aspects and the entire compensation amount prayed for was granted by the Tribunal. It may be true that the claimant had to undergo expensive treatment even after the filing of the petition. He should have anticipated it and placed his claim accordingly. Of course, there is nothing wrong in the Tribunal taking into consideration the subsequent events also while assessing the compensation. We do not see any merit in the cross objection.