1 W.P.No.3719/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3719 OF 2010. Kailas Narayan Giri, Age 40 years, Occ.Agril. and Labour, Tea Stall, Goat raising, R/o Incha, Taluka and District Hingoli. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Sk.Ismail Sk.Ibrahim, Age major, Occ.Auto owner, bearing No.MH-22-D-772, R/o Ward No.2, Garmal, Taluka and Dist. Hingoli. 1A. Pandit Sadashiv Bangar, Age major, Occ.Auto owner, bearing No.MH-22-D-772, R/o Pola Maruti, Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli. 2. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Dayawan Complex, Station Road, Parbhani. ... Respondents. ... Mr.Sachin Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Agrawal, advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr.A.B.Gatne, advocate for Respondent No.2. 2 W.P.No.3719/10 ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 12.07.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner is the original claimant. He has filed petition seeking compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner had claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac). During the pendency of the claim petition, the petitioner moved an application for amendment seeking enhancement in the compensation i.e. Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lacs). The said application is rejected by the Tribunal. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is 3 W.P.No.3719/10 filed. 4. Mr.Deshmukh, learned counsel submits that the application should have been allowed. There is no period of limitation prescribed. Even the Court has got powers to grant enhanced compensation though the said amount is not claimed. 5. Mr.Gatne, and Mr.Agrawal, learned counsels for the Respondents support the order passed by the Tribunal. 6. The proceedings in question are under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said proceedings are pursuant to the Social Welfare Legislation. The Tribunal if it comes to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled for more amount than what he has claimed has power and jurisdiction to grant the compensation of the enhanced amount and can direct the claimant to pay the Court-fees subsequently also. In fact, even an application for amendment is not necessary in that regard. 4 W.P.No.3719/10 7. One "word" order passed by the Tribunal depicts total non-application of mind and casual approach. 8. In the result, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the application Exh.16 is allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp3719.10