HIGH COURT.OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER w.P. 1c) no. 80112008 ETITIONER Rajkumari Singh Bais, Wd/o. omapplicam Lam S.N.Singh Bais, aged o . 3 about 85 years; R] o. Gurukripa Bhawan Sagan Distt. Sagar, (MP) Versus ‘RESPONDENTS 1. Ku.Shajlja, aged. about 12 years, D/o. Late Shri Raghavendra Sing]: 2. Anshnman Singh, aged about 10 ysars, S/o. Late Shri Raghavendra Singh Resp. No. 1 8a 2 are minor through their next friend Lav Kumar Singh Chandel, Sfo.. Late Shri Achal Dhruv Sixlgh, R/o. Sankar, Present msidcncc of Akaltara, Po}ice «Stau'on Akaltara, District Janjgir—Champa (CG) Brajwasi Sfo. Kamiashwar Prasacl 'I‘iwari, aged about 35 years, R/o. Geetanjali Nagar, Sector-2; House No.5, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (CG) Non—applicant 4. The imiia Insurance Company Limited, O$ce at Raipur (CG) Non-applicant 5. New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Mailager, O$ce 1 1 1 -A/ 2, Jwahmnkhi Endave, haku' 'Nagar, Sonbhadra (UP) Non—applicant WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA P N N S n“ Sh aibhav Goverdhan, counsel for the respoent. Shr; Rajcev Shxivastava, Advocat with Shn' Sidarth Rathom, counsel for resondents No. 1 6n 2. p None for respondent No.3. Shri Sorabh Shanna, counsel for respondents No. 4 & 5. (2.04.2009) Wit the onsent of he parties, the matter s hean‘l Wmy. 2. Challenge in the writ petition is to he order dated 18.1.2008 asse by the irs Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jjgi (CG) in M.A.C. No. 39/2006 y which the ndment applicau‘on med by the pe'oner (non—pplican No.3) has been rejected b e Cortbelow. After the a of Raghavendm Singh Smt. Sraddha Singh, their minor childre .e. respondent No. 1 and 2 have died a cl cse uder th otor Veicles Act seekin pn A li f t e e r aim a n e M h g comensatio. fter coming to know about nng o he case, the petitioner, who is the mother of deceased Raghavndra Singh med an application befor the Claims Tribunal unde Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Pmcedure and me said application was allowed. / l 3. The pen'tioner/non—applicant No.3 had also med a"\ written statement and immediately after tiling a written statement she died an application for amendment to elaborate the pleadings (Annexure P/ 1). By this applicanon, the following amendment has been sought by the petitioner. 4V , “ ;r»/a=r,, t;i Ayyearance: ri V nd e d u ORAL ORDER a h c t i ll t pd Ft anr b ame as tin at y th u deth 8r, h n i i 134)ag%wmww4swww§,m$mwfrm mwmwi-Ei a~a)agfa33:={ma3wq wwmam%$ Wmm’rwwp $.wmm$mmmamaa f$w$®§qwq§$mmaamwwmm 2m ‘ , 13—$)ag%mm$‘aw?immmww >mwmma3$WMWWm m§|m$mmwmmm$mamq§m §ta3%§w$mmmaa§%mmmsiw§ wtga‘gamakwwmmmwwaw 3m: WEWE}WE‘W§%I 13—3) as 13$ swam as aw’r mm zn’ in # 9,oo,ooo 2i, mmam$ww¥2wmo§@ma@§$w 1? 2,00,000 E Ioss of estate 2,00,000 ‘5, loss of consoru'um 2,00,000 *6, 134$) ag % W E53 a?! zga 17,oo,ooo/— zi- W 1m i? NWIIWI¥Wma magmm1 4. The amendmant gs sought has been rejected by the Court below vide impugned Older stating that the detailed pleadings have aheady been made in the wxitten statement and them is no substance in the application for amendment and that too, at the belated stage. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment as aought is necessaiy in the interest of justice because certain pleadings have to be made specinc and the conectclaim is also to be putt‘ot‘th. 7. On the other hand, Earned counsel for the xespondent No. 1 8:. 2 supporting the order impugned submits that the order is strictly in accordance with law governing the principles of law under Ozder 6 Rule 17 of the p Code of Civil Procedure. 1 d" 8. Shri Sourabh Shanna, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 8r, 5 also supports the order impugned. 9. I have heard counsel for the mspecu've paru‘es Admittedly, the grant of compensatlon to the famxly of the deceased member 1s a benevolent 1eg1siat10n and the amendment winch has been sought 1s m the nature where the mother of the deceased wants to elaborate her pleadings and to clan‘fy her' case. t I 10. n view of the above, the said amendment deserves to be allowed especially when the same will not cause any haxm or prejudice to either of the party and rather would be necessary for everyone including the Court to anive to a correct conclus1on and to dec1de as to who 1s entitled for the claim and up to What extent 11. In the result, the, petition is allowed. The amendment as sought for by the petitioner be permitted to be incorporated by the Court below and thereafter the Court to Sd/— Prmnker Diweken Judge E proceed further. No-order as to costs. ‘rv o ‘1 g