LAWS(TRIP)-2016-2-31

JAQANATH RISHI DAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA; TRIPURA STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD ; SR MANAGER, ELECTRICAL SUB-DIVISION

Decided On February 02, 2016
Jaqanath Rishi Das Appellant
V/S
State Of Tripura; Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd ; Sr Manager, Electrical Sub-Division Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition, the petitioner hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff has challenged the order dated 26.11. 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. M.S. 08 of 2008 whereby he rejected the application filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the plaintiff originally filed a civil Suit. In this civil suit it was alleged that on 19.10.2005 at about 12.00 noon when the plaintiff was at Durga Chowmuhani near Suryatorun Club an electric wire fell on him. As a result of the electrocution he suffered injuries and both his hands had to be amputated. According to the averments made in the plaints the plaintiff was a rickshaw puller and had become totally disabled and was unable to earn any amount whatsoever. The Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL) took a stand that no power line had fallen down and no accident had taken place on 19.10.2005 as alleged. The TSECL denied that any such occurrence had taken place. The suit was originally filed under the Fatal Accident Act and in the said suit following issues were framed:

(3.) After the case was remanded, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment on the first day fixed before the trial Court and by means of this amendment the date and time of accident was sought to be corrected from 19th October, 2005 at about 12.00 hrs. to 14th October, 2005 at about 2.45 p.m. This was the main amendment sought in the plaint. According to Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel on going through the records especially the medical evidence it was discovered that the accident had actually taken place on 14th October, 2005 at about 2.45 p.m. and, therefore, this amendment was necessary. This amendment was strongly opposed by the other side and the learned trial Court has rejected this application.