1. The petitioner is the father of the deceased Ashok Golnoor, who died in a road traffic accident on 20.08.2010 is before this Court for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 16.02.2016 made in MVC No. 513/2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gulbarga rejecting the application to permit the petitioner to amend his claim petition.

I. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE:

2. The only son of the 1st petitioner Sri Ashok Golnoor died in a road traffic accident on 20.08.2010 on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No.KA-32/F-963. Therefore, the father, wife, daughter and son of the deceased have filed a claim petition in MVC No. 513/2011 before the claims Tribunal under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation from the respondent – Corporation. After contest, the Tribunal recorded a finding that the deceased Ashok Golnoor, the son of the first petitioner died in a road traffic accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The respondent – Corporation has failed to prove that the deceased has contributed for the accident and the claimants are entitled for compensation. Accordingly, the Tribunal by an award dated 29.02.2012 awarded compensation of Rs.27,17,600/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

3. It is also not in dispute that aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal awarding compensation in favour of the claimants, the respondent – Corporation filed and appeal in MFA No. 31050/2012 before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court after hearing both the parties by its order dated 22.10.2013 dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The judgment and award passed by this Court has reached finality.

4. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed an application before the Tribunal under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment of the cause title in the claim petition contending that due to the oversight and by typing mistake in the cause title, the name and age of the first petitioner has been wrongly shown as ‘Sharanappa S/o Ashok Golnoor, aged about 6 years’ instead of ‘Sharanappa S/o late Dhareppa Golnoor, aged about 68 years’. In Column No.19 after word wife and sons the word ‘father’ is to be added. In Column No. 22 in the 2nd line after the word ‘son’ the word ‘father is to be added. The respondent – Corporation has not filed any objections to the said application.

5. The Tribunal while considering the said application has allowed the petitioners to adduce evidence. Accordingly, the 1st petitioner has filed an affidavit of evidence under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that the first petitioner was wrongly shown as son of the deceased instead of father of the deceased and also his name and age has been shown as ‘Sharanappa S/o Ashok Golnoor, aged about 6 years’ instead of ‘Sharanappa S/o late Dhareppa Golnoor, aged about 68 years’. Therefore, the petitioners have sought to amend the cause title of the claim petition. The respondent – Corporation has not cross examined the first petitioner, nor adduced any contra evidence, nor disputed the fact that the first petitioner Sharanappa Golnoor is the father of Ashok Golnoor and not the son of the deceased Ashok Golnoor.

6. The Tribunal while considering the application, by the impugned order dated 16.02.2016 dismissed the same mainly on the ground that it has been filed after lapse of four years and the mistake is not only in the petition but it is in all the documents including the judgment and award. Hence, the present writ petition is filed for the relief sought for.

II. RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

8. Sri Shivanand Patil, learned counsel for the first petitioner vehemently contended that