MANGTA RAM Vs. MOHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision petition is directed against the order dated 3.5.2012, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala whereby application for amendment of claim petition has been rejected by the court below.

(2.) LEARNED counsel has argued that the order is erroneous in nature. The petitioners merely want to amend the claim from section 166 to 163 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act. He has relied upon a judgment reported as Guruanna Vadi and another v. The General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and another, AIR 2001 Karnataka 275.

(3.) IT appears that an accident took place on 29.5.2010 in which a five years old child died. Claim petition was preferred by his father under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. During the pendency of proceedings, instant application was moved for amending the claim under section 163 -A of the Act. Prayer has been rejected by the court below. I feel that order is unsustainable. Petitioner would be entitled to seek necessary amendment. The amendment sought would not change the nature of the claim petition. A full bench of Karnataka High Court in Guruanna Vadi's case (supra) has observed as follows: -