S.K. PALANIAPPAH KANDAISWAMI Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by original opponent Nos. 2 and 3, viz., tae owner of the truck and the insurer thereof against whom there is an order in favour of the first respondent (original claimant) awarding Rs. 42,000/- by way of compensation with future interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date of application, that is to say, from 2.7.1983 till the realisation along with the costs of the application. This order was passed on 19.10.1984 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sangli, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 40 of 1983. The relevant facts may be stated as under:

(2.) ON 3.1.1983 the officers of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (for short, 'the M.S.E.B.') were proceeding in an Ambassador car, belonging to the M.S.E.B., bearing registration No. MTI 6431 from Karad to Kolhapur, that is to say, from north to south. At the same time, that is to say, at about 1 P.M., the truck belonging to the first appellant bearing registration No. CAA 2299 was coming from Kolhapur and was proceeding to Karad, that is to say, from south to north. The respondent No. 2 in this appeal is the original opponent No. 1 in the Tribunal, who was the driver of the truck at the relevant time. The case of respondent No. 1, claimant, is that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and it came to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the Ambassador car in which the officers of the M.S.E.B. were travelling. As a result of this accident, the entire right hand side of the Ambassador car was extensively damaged and the M.S.E.B. had to spend Rs. 42.000/- for repairing the said car.

(3.) ON 3.2.1984 an application was made by the owner of the truck and the driver of the truck seeking to join the Insurance Company, present appellant No. 2, as a party to the proceedings. This application was granted on 9.3.1984 and the present appellant No. 2, Insurance Company, came to be added as original opponent No. 3 in the proceedings in the Tribunal. Issues were framed on 23.7.1984 and 30.8.1984 was the date fixed for hearing. On this day, the original claimant preferred an application for enhancing the claim from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 42,000/- on the ground that the repairs were completed by them and on the basis of certain bills and vouchers the cost of repairs was Rs. 42,000/- and hence, liberty was sought to amend the claim by enhancing it from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 42,000/-. This application was granted on the same day, viz. 30.84984 and what has happened immediately thereafter has given rise to the controversy in this appeal.