1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9144 OF 2007 Saluddin Mahamulal Mujawa (since deceased) through his legal heirs & representatives 1A Ashama Mahamulal Mujawar & Ors ...Petitioners vs. Shrikant @ Bapu Vithoba Yervi & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.U.R.Mankapure for the petitioners Mr.Sandesh Deshpande for respondent no.3 Mr.Shrishail Sakhare i/b Mr.J.P.Kharge for respondent nos.2A to 2C CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : AUGUST 11, 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and the learned counsel for respondent nos.2A to 2C. The Respondent no.1 has been served. Considering the narrow controversy involved, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2 The petitioners are the original claimants in a claim petition filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Initially, the claim petition was filed by the predecessors of the petitioner (Salauddin) contending that he had suffered injuries in an accident involving a motor vehicle. He claimed compensation on account of 2 permanent disability and on various other counts. During the pendency of the claim petition, the original claimant Salaudin died on 19th March 2006. The present petitioners were brought on record. The present petitioners applied for amendment of the claim petition by contending that as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, the original applicant died. Therefore, enhanced claim for compensation was sought to be made by the petitioners in their capacity as the legal representative of Salaudin. By the impugned order dated 6th October 2007, the said application has been rejected. 3 After having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am constrained to observe that the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has taken a very hyper-technical view. The original claim petition was filed by the injured on account of permanent disability. The case of the heirs of the of the original claimants is that the original claimant succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident. The death of the original claimant occurred on 19th March 2006 and the application for amendment was made on 28th November 2006. The learned Member has committed an error by observing that in such a case the claim of the claimants is very restricted and they can claim only the expenses incurred. Whether the petitioners were entitled to receive the claim as prayed 3 in the amendment or not is a question which is required to be decided after considering the evidence adduced in the light of facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioners will have to establish on evidence that the death of the original claimant was as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. If amendment is allowed, the petitioners will get compensation provided they prove their case. There was no reason to reject the prayer for amendment. Therefore, by keeping all the questions open, the amendment deserves to be allowed. 4 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned order dated 6th October 2007 is quashed and set aside. The application made by the petitioner at Exh.38 in M.A.C Application No.344 of 2001 is allowed. ii)The petitioners will carry out amendment to the claim petition within a period of two weeks from the date on which the writ of this order is received by the tribunal. iii)It is obvious that the concerned respondents will be entitled to file the additional written statement to the amended application. iv)It will be open for the petitioners to apply to the Tribunal for permission to lead additional evidence in the light of the amendment. It will be open for the respondents to recall the witnesses examined by 4 the petitioners. v) Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. JUDGE