PROBODH KUMAR SAHA Vs. BIKINI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE of the Respondents in case No. 345 of 1974 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (The Learned Additional District Judge, 13th Bench, Alipore) is the Petitioner before us in this revision of application. A prayer made on his behalf for leave to amend the written -statement having been refused by the learned Judge in the Tribunal below by the order impugned dated March 13, 1980 he had moved this Court with the above revisional application. The amendment sought for was to the effect that he wanted to plead that he ceased to be the owner of the vehicle by virtue of transfer effected prior to the accident. This prayer having been refused by the learned Judge for four reasons given by him in the order the Petitioner is challenging the said order before us.

(2.) HAVING heard Mr. Mitra in support of this revisional application we are of the opinion that at least the second ground given by the learned Additional District Judge must prevail and if not on the other grounds at least on that ground the application had been rightly rejected. The prayer for amendment appears to us not to be bona fide in view of the fact that in the original written statement there was a clear and unequivocal admission by the Petitioner himself that he was the owner of the vehicle which caused the accident. Having made such an express admission in the writ -ten -statement he is now trying to get himself relieved of the admission by pleading an earlier transfer about the bona fides of which there is ample ground to suspect particularly because in spite of an opportunity being given to Mr. Mitra his client has failed to satisfy us that any such transfer was recorded with the registering authority prior to the accident.