HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3207 OF 2011 DATED 28TH NOVEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN Challari Sreerama Murthy …….Petitioner and Bjajagani Venkateswara Rao and ors …… Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3207 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the claimant in OP.No. 649 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Eluru, West Godavari District aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2011 whereby the application in I.A.No. 132 of 2011 filed by him under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to amend the plaint for enhancement of compensation from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/- was dismissed. Heard. Perused the case file. It is the case of the petitioner that he filed the aforesaid OP initially seeking payment of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 7.5.2008. Later, he obtained the Disability Certificate from the District Medical Board to the effect that he suffered disability to an extent of 30%. He had incurred the medical expenditure more than Rs.2,00,000/- and as such, he withdrew the earlier application filed in I.A.No. 83 of 2010 for enhancement of the claim from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- instead of Rs.6,00,000/- with liberty to file fresh petition. As he was permanently disabled due to the injuries sustained in the said accident, now he filed the application in I.A.No. 132 of 2011 for enhancement of compensation as sought for. The said application was opposed by the third respondent-Insurance company contending that no sufficient documentary proof was filed to substantiate his relief sought for. The Court below dismissed the said application observing that the relief prayed for in the impugned application is not supported by documentary evidence. Hence this CRP. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in as much as the matter pertains to seeking payment of compensation on account of the injuries sustained by the revision petitioner in a road motor accident, the right of the injured person to receive legitimate compensation needs to be protected. He further submitted that the revision petitioner had incurred more expenditure than the amount claimed initially and that he would file sufficient documentary evidence during the trial of the OP. In support of his contentions he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh (AIR 2003 SC 674). Rule 17 of Order VI postulates that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. It also lays down that such amendments should be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Notwithstanding the same, no application for amendment should be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the manner for which amendment is sought before the commencement of the trial. In the case on hand, the material on record reflects that trial has not yet commenced. It is the contention of the petitioner that he suffered sever injuries in the motor vehicle accident and permanently disabled to an extent of 30% as was certified by the District Medical Board. The earlier application in I.A.No. 83 of 2010 filed by him for enhancement of compensation from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- in stead of Rs.6,00,000/- was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition. Now, assessing the medical expenditure and other expenses incurred thereto, he filed the impugned application seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/-. Since the trial has not yet begun in the case in hand, the said amendment does not cause any prejudice to the opposite party. Needless to observe, the said enhancement of compensation sought for would be adjudicated basing on the evidence adduced before the Court below. In case there is no evidence on record, the Court may permit the petitioner to produce relevant evidence. It is well settled that rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Courts should be extremely liberal in granting prayer for amendment unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. Having regard to the above settled legal propositions, the Court below keeping in mind the fact that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation intended to provide monetary solace to dependants of the victims or injured in the road accident and such claim petitions for payment of compensation should not be thrown out with hectic orders and that it should always make an endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent, ought to have allowed the impugned application filed before it seeking amendment for enhancement of the compensation to Rs.6,00,000/-. For the foregoing discussion, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. As a sequel thereto, the order under revision is set aside and I.A.No. 132 of 2011 in O.P.No. 649 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Eluru, West Godavari District stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 28TH NOVEMBER, 2011 Msnro