IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WritPetition (227) No. "3 b’ 3E 12009 (8.3.) / Awadesh Kumar Gupta 8/0 Dr. Vidhya Vinod h“ «0 Gupta, aged about 45 years, Occupation — Advocate, Notary, Resident of Sadar Bazaar, Champa, District — Janjgir — Champa (C.G.) PETITIONER Appiicant . VERSUS X 1. Sunii Sarna, aged about41 years, S/o Harishchandra Sarna, Resident of N.C./167, C‘.S.E.B. Colony, Korba, P.S. Korba District — Korba (Chhattisgarh) ESPONDENTS . Non — appiicant No. 1 Non-appiicant no. 2. Rammani Sharma, aged about 27 years, S/o Banshiiai Sharma, Resident of E.W.S.M.P. Nagar, Korba, P.S. Korba, District — Korba (Chhattisgarh) Non-applicant no. 3 Orientai insurance Company Ltd. Kshetriya Karyaiay, Korba, C.T. Branch Office, D. Compiex, T.P. Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Surendra Singh, S/o Virbhan Singh, aged about 38 years, Resident of Kids Station, 8.8. Piaja Power House Road, Korba, District — Korba (Chhattisgarh) Non-appiicant no. 4 r Branch Manager, Nationai insurance Company, Kosa Badi, Korba District - Korba (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICAL 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The above named petitioners most humbiy and respectfuly begs to submit as under :- . PARTICERS OF THE PETITIONERS : AS per the cause title . Non-applicant no. 5 m R l 1 UL W: 206? WWW (W9 mmfa'vii’a; ' mmm ‘ mm§wm ammm $a¥mwéw ‘ 3.8. Hon’bie 5hr? Justice N.K. A 03-1 1 -2099 Shri Prakash Tiwari. counsei or the petitioner. Shri Alok Gupta, counsel for espondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent No3. Shri Puneet Ruparel, counse for respondent No.4. Shri Dashrath Gupta, couns I and Shri Sanjay Gupta, counsei for respondent No.5. Heard fmaiiy. Feeling aggrieved by the o er dated 13-05-2009 passed in Ciaim Case No.38/2009 by Second Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Janjgir (for snort ‘the Tri unai), whereby and whereunder the applications preferred by petit oner under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. for amendment of the claim etition and Order 7 Rule 14 sub- rule (3) of C.P.C. for taking docum nt on record has been dismissed, the instant petition has been prefer d. Facts briefly stated as under As per the claimant/petiti ner, he has preferred a claim petition initially claiming compens ion to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/—. Thereafter, the claimant/petitioner has undergone further treatment and incurred more expenditure as ell as disability and, therefore, he sought permission of the Tribunalt amend the claim petition as well ‘ as to file photo copy of disability ce ificate which was issued by the l l l Wmmm-x . We: .r .v... t 3mm <W) mwm’ fgf WM fmWm #mm medical board. Leamed tria! Cc uré dismissed the applésatien for amendment and aiso dismissed tite appiication for taking document on record on. the ground that only photo copy of it has been produced. Learned counsel appearin for the petitioner would submit that as the claimant suffered grie ous injuries and his treatment is still continuing and therefore, he s ught for amendment in the claim petition to claim the expenditure i curred during pendency of claim petition and also the disability certi icate issued by the medical board which is relevant and ought to ha e been allowed by the Tribunai. He further submits that since he as to travel Nagpur and Bombay for his treatment and for that the original certificate is required for claiming railway concession and h will prove the original at the time of evidence and also prove th examining doctor in this behalf. Per contra, learned couns l appearing for the respondents would submit that the amendment as been rightiy disailowed by the learned Tribunal; since the originai document was not filed which is a requirement of law and, theref e, the same was aiso rightly disallowed by the Tribunat.‘ l have heard iearned couns l for the parties and perused the record . i ésrewmtgom v . w... injuries sustained by him by The petitionerfclaimant by V‘Jay of amendment wants to ciaim x 7 the amount of expenditure incurr d in his further treatment and also to fiie a copy of disability rtificate which may be relevant mm-«W #k/l—d , EWWW mwcw)~3333;‘izooq mm (W) amaémm mmitww mvmm *3‘mm document while determining amoxknt of compensation upon Its legat proof 1n this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal has c?mmitted grave error in dismissing both the applications. Therefore, he‘order impugned is quashed. It is directed that the learned Trib nal shall permit the petitioner to incorporate the amendment in uestion, permit to file disability certificate and after affording rea nable opportunity to the opposite party to incorporate conseque ial‘ amendment if any, to fiie document in rebuttal if any, th ri to proceed with the case in ’3’ \ Kvr accordance With law Without beln§ Influenced by any opinion given bv this Court in this order Petiti l l u ‘L Sd/_ ‘7 Vt r "V4“? i ' N.K. Agrawali l Judge