Ram Chand Gupta, J.@mdashPetitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 24.12.2010, Annexure P6, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur, (hereinafter to be referred as the Tribunal''), vide which application filed by petitioner-claimant under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC (hereinafter to be referred as the Code'') for amendment of the claim petition was dismissed.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal.
3. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a petition for compensation was filed by present petitioner-claimant u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act'') on account of injuries sustained by her in the accident. In the petition, income of the petitioner-claimant was taken as Rs. 5,000/-per month. However, by way of amendment the income is sought to be curtailed from Rs. 5,000/-per month to Rs. 3,300/- per month.
4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-claimant that she was having no fixed income and it was only alleged that she used to do stitching, embroidery and house-hold work and hence the income of the petitioner-claimant was mentioned by approximation. It is further contended that petitioner-claimant only intends to reduce the said income from Rs. 5,000/-per month to Rs. 3,300/-per month. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No.1629 of 2009 decided on 31.8.2009 (Sukhwinder Kaur and another v. Kuldip Singh and Another).
5. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company that application was moved after conclusion of the evidence of the petitioner-claimant and that the same has been filed just to bring the petitioner-claimant within the purview of Section 163A of the Act and hence, it is contended that plea cannot be accepted.
6. In Sukhwinder Kaur''s case (supra) as well income of the deceased was mentioned as Rs. 3,500/-per month in the claim petition and the same was sought to be reduced to Rs. 3,000/-per month so as to bring the petitioners-claimants within the purview of Section 163A of the Act. This Court by observing that Section 163A of the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation in nature and would not act as a hindrance or bar for the claimant to seek amendment in claim petition by reducing the monthly income of the deceased, allowed the same to be reduced.
7. Further, merely on the ground that the application was filed at a later stage, request cannot be declined. Rather the other party can be compensated by way of cost. Hence, I am of the view that illegality has been committed by learned Tribunal in passing the impugned order.
8. In view of the above discussion, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. As a consequence thereof, petitioner-claimant is allowed to amend the claim petition by scaling down her income. Learned Tribunal may proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.
9. However, as the application has been filed at a belated stage, petitioner-claimant is burdened with cost of Rs. 5,000/-, which shall be a condition precedent.
