BANDLA BHUSHANAM Vs. SEETARAMA TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is sought to be filed against the order and decree in O.P. No.1348 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, which was a claim for compensation for the death of the deceased claiming a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the Tribunal has granted the same finding that the claimants will be entitled for more. But the claim was only for a limited amount.

(2.) THE present appeal is sought to be filed by seeking amendment of the original claim petition enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 2 lakhs and consequently to condone the delay and entertain the appeal. Evidently, the decree in favour of the petitioners is as per the claim and there is no right of appeal against the decree as they are not aggrieved by the decree. Under Section 96 CPC or under Order 41, an appeal lies against the decree or order when once a party is aggrieved. In this particular case, the party is not aggrieved because the claim as made was granted. THE hypothetical proposition that had I made higher claim I would have been entitled for the same and therefore amendment may be permitted and appeal to be entertained is beyond reason. A party who has restricted the claim cannot say at a later stage that his claim was wrongly made for a lesser amount. Even if it is a case of social security measure, the Courts have to only consider the reasonable and fair compensation and it is not a particular amount of compensation that is to be decided. THE counsel for the petitioners wants to rely upon the decision reported in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others (1) 2003 (1) An.W.R. 135 (SC) = (2003) 2SCC 274 whereunder in a case of pending appeal, an application for amendment to enhance claim amount was permitted. But, here in this case, the facts are quite different. THE proposed amendment for enhancing the claim under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC which only contemplates the amendment of the pleadings. In this case, the stage of pleadings has gone and as per the procedure under CPC, after filing of the pleadings by both parties, issues or points will be determined and judgment will be delivered, which is followed by a decree to be executed. THErefore, there are no more pleadings available for seeking amendment as there is only decree at this stage which is executable. THEre fore, the claim for amendment of the pleadings for a higher claim of compensation is misconceived and not warranted and accordingly the CMAMP is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Consequently the other applications, if any, are; also not maintainable.