V.K.SHUKLA,J. - (1.) PETITIONER has rushed to this court questioning the validity of the order dated 15.10.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Ballia wherein application (64-Ka) for amendment as well as application (59-Ga) for admitting D.L. No. 556/07 as valid and to be taken on record has been rejected.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case as is reflected that an accident took place on 4.8.2010 at 6.00 A.M. near village Daulatpur within police station Narhi, District Ballia wherein Ajay Kumar Bind son of Virendra Ram alias Virendra Pratap and Smt. Kamlawati Devi wife of Virendra Ram alias Virendra Pratap died on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of Mini Bus No. UP-60K/3540. Claim petition was filed by respondent nos. 3 and 4 before the the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and same was numbered as M.A.C.P. No. 111 of 2010. In the said claim petition written statement was filed by the petitioner and Insurer also filed his written statement. In the written statement which has been so filed by the petitioner therein precise stand was taken that driver had driving licence No. 724/89 issued by the A.R.T.O. Ballia. Affidavit to the same effect had also been filed by Ritesh Rai. Driving licence of Lallan Prasad bearing No. 724/09 issued by the A.R.T.O. was found fake licence in the verification which was carried out by Insurance Company. When all these facts came on record that stand which has been so taken is in-genuine stand based on fake document, then at the said juncture, petitioner had moved an application for amendment for substituting the number and validity of driving licence and for bringing on record licence No. 556/07 shown to be valid from 26.6.2009 to 25.6.2012, both the applications have been rejected. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. Sri. Sharve Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the fact of the present case ends of justice demanded that application which has been so moved by the petitioner for advancing cause of justice ought to have been accepted and as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.
(3.) RECORD in question speaking itself that petitioner has come up with specific case that Lallan Prasad was having driving Licence bearing No. 724/89 issued by the A.R.T.O. Ballia. Petitioner had also filed affidavit in support of the said claim being set up by him that Lallaln Prasad had Licence No. 724/89. Insurance Company carried out verification proceeding and found that aforesaid driving licence was fake one. Confronted with this situation and to come out from aforementioned situation petitioner, who had earlier given driving licence number 724/89 found fake filed amendment application to substitute driving Licence No. 556/07 valid from 26.6.2009 to 25.6.2012 in place of earlier number supplied. Said application was objected to by the Insurance company. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal considered entire material and clearly found that petitioner was making deliberate attempt to disown the precise statement made by him on the earlier occasion and in this background has proceeded to reject the amendment application being motivated one. View, which has been taken by the Tribunal cannot be faulted in the fact of the present case, as on earlier occasion specific stand has been taken by petitioner that Lallan Pradad had Driving Licence No. 724/89 issued by the A.R.T.O. Ballia, even affidavit in support of the same has been filed reiterating same set of fact and Insurance Company in verification proceedings found all the documents to be ingenuine then a totally new case is being carved out, dis owing the earlier precise case by adding that driving licence is No. 556/07. The reason which has been advanced by the petitioner for moving an application is that due to inadvertent mistake, said incorrect statement of fact has been mentioned. Statement made was not at all case of inadvertent error, rather deliberate and wilful statement of fact has been mentioned and same has been found to be incorrect in verification proceeding, then altogether different stand has been sought to be made. Said order rejecting amendment application in the fact of the present case cannot be said to be faulty.;