SAIN DASS Vs. BEANT SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by Sain Dass Petitioner, against Haryana Roadways, Punjab Roadways and other connected parties, claiming compensation in respect of injuries received by the Petitioner in an accident which took place between the buses of these two roadways. In the claim petition the Petitioner mentioned the registration number of the Punjab Roadways Bus as PUG -2297 although the actual number of the bus was PUG -7792. During the trial of the claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal the Punjab Roadways, which is now represented, admittedly did not file any written statement to the claim petition. As soon as the mistake in the registration number referred to above was noticed, the Petitioner moved an application before the Tribunal praying for the necessary amendment and incorporating the correct number in the claim petition. The prayer was resisted by Punjab Roadways and its ancillary parties. By means of impugned order dated 13th February, 1978 the prayer was declined by the Tribunal. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the said order of the Tribunal.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the contesting parties and find that the order of the Tribunal is not at all sustainable. It is a well recognised procedure of law that a formal amendment of the type, as prayed for in the present case, should never be denied at any stage of the proceeding. There is hardly any purpose in citing case law on the point as even the Supreme Court has opined on this subject in Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon : AIR 1969 S.C. 1267. In fact the Supreme Court went to the extent by laying down that a party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. Their Lordships also held that the court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying, was acting mala -fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. It is pertinent to notice here the further observation of the Supreme Court that however, negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. It is well settled rule of law which has obviously been ignored by the Tribunal. Thus there is no reason to uphold the order of the Tribunal impugned in this case and the same is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to allow the necessary amendment to the Petitioner for being incorporated in the claim petition and then proceed with the case in accordance with law. No written statement having been filed by the Punjab Roadways before the Tribunal, there is no occasion for allowing costs to them in the present case. The petition is disposed of accordingly.