C SELVAKUMAR Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagercoil on 17.12.1999 in C. M. P. No.58/1999 in O. P. No.45/1998.

(2.) The complaint is made by one Selvakumar stating that he employed one Rajan @ Pon Rajakumar as his driver to drive his vehicle and that the said driver was having valid driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicles as a paid employee and that the driver on the wheel Rajan @ Pon Rajakumar was not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence and that the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-74a 0424 TATA 407 dashed against the electric pole and in the said accident, the driver and one Natesan sustained severe injuries and the insurer to whom the claim was made for damages had repudiated and there was a deficiency in service. While it was so, the complainant filed an application in C. M. P. No.58/1999 for deleting the name of Rajan @ Pon Rajakumar occurring in Paragraph No.7 and to insert the name Swami Nadar in that place. This application was rejected by the lower Forum. Hence, this petition.

(3.) The complainant has stated clearly in Paragraph 7 that the driver who drove the vehicle at the time of accident was Rajan @ Pon Rajakumar. Having stated so specifically, now the complainant wants to introduce one Swami Nadar as the driver of the vehicle. But in the version filed in the complaint, the opposite party has clearly stated in Paragraph 3 as follows: "as per the FIR, the vehicle TN-74a-0424 was driven by one Swaminadar, son of Chellasivalingam of Kesavanputhoor. Due to the accident, the driver did not sustain any injury. But the occupants one Rajan, son of Chelladurai of Chemponkarai and Natesan, son of Thangaraja of Puthenthurai sustained injuries. Those persons were admitted for treatment in the Government Hospital by the driver Swaminandan and one Sasikumar, son of Chelladurai". Therefore, the opposite party has clearly admitted that it was Swami Nadar, who drove the vehicle and it is he who lodged the FIR and it is he who took the injured to the Hospital. Therefore, the mention of the name of Rajan @ Pon Rajakumar must be only a mistake. When the opposite party admits that it was Swami Nadar, who has driven the vehicle, they cannot possibly be taken by surprise now it. The amendment is only sought to mention the name of Swami Nadar as the driver instead of Rajan @ Pon Rajakumar. By doing so, no vested right of opposite party will be taken away nor any injury would be caused to them. Further there is no change in the cause of action, which is based only upon the accident. If the opposite party had taken a stand that it was only Pon Rajakumar who has driven the vehicle or it was somebody else driven the vehicle and not Swami Nadar, perhaps this attempt on the part of the complainant can be termed as an attempt for development of the case and an attempt introducing a new facet to the case. But in view of the very admitted case of the opposite party, we have to hold that the application for amendment ought to have been allowed more so, when it is the very case of the opposite party and who will not be prejudiced in any manner by reason of the amendment. Nor this amendment would introduce any new cause of action or a new person into the scene.