IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHl W.P. (227) No. 1 L1 {^~of 2010 PETITIONER United India Insurance Non-applicant No.5 Co.Ltd., Ram Mandir Turning, Ambikpuar, District Surguja (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS -^l) Manju Devi, Wife of late Shiv K<-^'<-KeFa_ Jaiswal, aged 24 years, \0-.--'' .0°^ .9^^.^. -"$^y ^0'- 1&. J-f..•••6 'eSs'tt5S/£\, t'^^~';'i%^ ^ ^ ^- ^ :2) Deepu Kumar, Son of late Shiv fCe-slv Kera Jaiswal, aged about 11 years, :3) Manish Kumar Son of late Shiv Ke^ Kera^ Jaiswal, aged about 9 years, Respondents/claimants No.2 and 3 Minors through natural guardian mother Respondent/ claimant No. 1 Manju Devi All residents of Mayapur, Police Station and Tahsil Ambikapu, District Surguja (C-G-) (^ LAi^^NT'^ :4) Subodh Pandey @ Krishndev son of Ramesh Rai, aged 40 years, R/o. Surajpur, Permanent R/o. Luiher, Police Station Champaran, Hajaribag (Bihar) Non-applicant No,l :5) Ramavtar Agrawal, Son of Dwarika Prasad Agrawal, R/o. Village and Post Surajpur, District Surguja Non-applicant No.2 ^ ^ :6) Survind Kumar Gurjer, Son of Radheshyam, Gurjer, Post Mohar stop, District Surguja (C.G.) Non-applicant No.3 ^:7) Sudarshan, Son of Gokul, aged about 35 years, R/o. Dharpathar, Bihar Non-applicant No.4 :8) Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Manendragarh Road, near Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Non-applicant No.6 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ sn^iqii T^i^ s^s sbt(t* flti?f + '4 'S^ •^IWM^, afllwis. iqCTiuy 3n^?r "tRra? ^;?. ('2.2^")^. \^l97^1o "^ 200 *il*«-IT»W» ftre^ti' aii^i ^Biiw^itef SB: Hoa'ble Shri Manindra K 01.04.2010 Shri H.B.Agrawal, Sen: counsel for the petitioner. This petition under Art has-been filed against fhe ord MotorVehicles Act tiiat fhey steteiaent. It wfll always b exercise of right of their defe: chl^Tfl^ 'fVf^ ^^^ '<[^^li i; siPw 3D^[ ,J. |or Advocate with Shri Paiikaj Agrawal lcle 227 ofthe Constifution of Indian of er dated 15/02/2010 (Annexure P-6) by which ainendment appUcatio4 filed by fhe respondents/claimants has been allowed. Subraission of fhe lea^iied coynsel for fhe petitioner is fhat uiitially in fh.e claim. applica1|ion, fhe age of Tninor claunauts, Deepu aad Manish Kuiuarwas show(i as 7 aad 5 years respectively. Later ou, on a stand taken while resisl|m.g appUcation under Section 140 of fhe ere not dependents, clamiaats nioved aa application which alters fhe n^ture of fhe case of fh.e claunan.ts. I have perused fhe ordejr passed by fhe learaed Claiins Tribunal. The amendiiient sought by f)ie claim.aats and aUowed by fhe Claiins Tnbuiial does not in any mattaer alter»fhe case of the claunants. The / amendBaent also does not i^. any nianner shuts the defence which coiild be taken by fhe petitloner/Insuraiice Coinpany in its written open for the petitioner to take staud ia .ce iacludiag fhe defence which is made basis to challeuge fhe order i4ipugiied. Wifh tlus observation, 1|he petition is finaUy disposed of. i; Sd/- ^ ":' , Manindra Mohan Stowastava Judge [^^ ^s^f