SABYASACHI DAS Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned Order No. 19 dated 16.03.2006 passed by Sri S. Dasgupta, the learned Additional District Judge, 6th Fast Track Court, Alipore in MAC Case No. 97 of 2004 rejecting thereby the petition filed by the claimant/petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17, C. P. C. for amendment of the petition. The case of the petitioner/claimant, in short, is that he filed a claim case under Section 163A of the M.V. Act being MAC Case No. 97 of 2004 against the Opposite Party before the MAC Tribunal, Alipore praying for compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- on account of the injury in motor accident. The accident took place on 21.5.2004 at about 13.30 hours at Digha-Macheda Road near Dakshin Kalamdar caused by the offending vehicle (Bus) No. WB-25B/1168. The offending vehicle was owned by O. P. No. 2 and insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Due to the said motor accident the petitioner sustained multiple severe injury all over the body, the compound fracture of right elbow and both bones of right hand, causing permanent disablement to a substantial extent. The victim was aged 28 years and had substantial monthly income at the time of the said accident. The O.P. New India Assurance Co. has filed written statement and contested the claim before the MAC Tribunal. The petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. in connection with MAC Case No. 97 of 2004 praying for amendment of original claim petition to introduce the phrase "just compensation" instead of amount claimed Rs. 2,50,000/- as against column No. 22 of the claim petition. The learned Tribunal vide Order No. 19 dated 16.03.2006 was pleased to reject the petition filed by the claimant. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Tribunal, the claimant has preferred the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the claim was preferred under Section 163A of the M.V. Act and as per the format given under Rule 329 of the Motor Vehicles Rules there is no necessity to mention the amount claimed as against item No. 22. In this connection learned Counsel has referred and cited the decision reported in AIR 2003 SC 674 : (2003)1 WBLR (SC) 774 [Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh & Ors.]. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that as per the principle enunciated in the aforesaid decision there is no necessity to mention any amount and it is sufficient if "just compensation" is mentioned as against item No. 22 of the claim petition.

(3.) Learned Court below held that the claim petition has been initiated as per Rule 329 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 in form No. Comp. A in which the claimant has to mention the amount claimed without which the claim petition would not be entertainable. It appears that the principle of "just compensation" as enunciated in the aforesaid decision relates to the petition under Sectioh 166 cf the M.V. Act. But in the instant case before the learned Tribunal the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the M.V. Act. Section 163A provides for payment of compensation on no fault liability in terms of the structured formula. The principle of "just compensation" being applicable in connection with application under Section 166 of the M. V. Act, the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision is not applicable in the facts of the instant case. The learned Tribunal, therefore, was justified in rejecting the petition filed by the claimant/petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C. P. C. praying for amendment for the claimed petition. The instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. Interim order stands vacated.