P.K. Lohra, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 10.07.2015 (Annex.5) passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhinmal, Jalore (for short, 'learned Tribunal'), whereby learned Tribunal has allowed application of the respondent-claimant for amendment in the claim petition.
(2.) The facts, in brief, are that respondent-claimant laid a claim petition under Sections 165 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short Act of 1988') claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.7,28,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in a road accident. In the claim petition besides owner and driver of the offending vehicle petitioner-insurer was also impleaded as non-applicant. After laying the claim petition, respondent-claimant made endeavour to seek amendment in the claim petition and for that purpose application (Annex.3) was filed, inter-alia, claiming enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.77,51,000/-. The prayer made in the application was stoutly opposed by the petitioner-Insurer. Learned Tribunal, by its impugned order Annex. 5 allowed the amendment on payment of cost of Rs. 500/-
(3.) Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Bachhawat has vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal has not examined the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the pleadings and the order impugned is also absolutely vague and cryptic. Learned counsel has also urged that the application seeking amendment in the claim petition is also bereft of material particulars yet the learned Tribunal has granted indulgence to the respondent-claimant. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurdial Singh & Ors. v. Raj Kumar Aneja & Ors. reported in (2002) 2 SCC 445 .;