JUDGMENT - A.V. SAVANT, J.:---This is an Appeal by original opponents Nos. 2 and 3 viz. the owner of the truck and the insurer thereof against whom there is an order in favour of the first respondent (original claimant) awarding Rs. 42,000/- by way of compensation with future interests at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of application, that is to say from 2nd July 1983 till the realisation alongwith the costs of the application. This order was passed on 19th October 1984 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangli, in Motor Accident Claim No. 40 of 1983. The relevant facts may be stated as under :

2. On 3rd January, 1983 the officers of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (for short, the M.S.E.B.') were proceeding in an ambassador car, belonging to the M.S.E.B., bearing registration No. MTT 6431 from Karad to Kolhapur, that is to say from North to South. At the same time, that is to say at about 1.00 p.m., the truck belonging to the first appellant bearing registration No. CAA 2299 was coming from Kolhapur and was proceeding to Karad, that is to say from South to North. The 2nd respondent in this appeal is the original opponent No. 1 in the Tribunal, who was the driver of the truck at the relevant time. The case of respondent No. 1 claimant is that the truck was, being driven in a rash and negligent manner and it came to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the ambassador car in which the officers of the M.S.E.B. were travelling. As a result of this accident, the entire right hand side of the ambassador car was extensively damaged and the M.S.E.B. had to spend Rs. 42,000/- for repairing the said car.

3. On 2nd July 1983 the claimant filed the application under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 initially claiming a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation. This was on the basis of the estimated cost of repairs which were then in progress. On 21st January 1984 the owner of the truck and its driver filed written statement denying the contents of the statement of claim and in particular, the contents of para 22, which set out the claimant's version of the accident. In the written statement the allegation that the truck was being driver in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the truck was denied. It was, on the contrary, alleged that the truck was being driven on the proper side of the road at a reasonable speed in accordance with the relevant rules and that it was the claimant's ambassador car which was being driven in an excessive speed and also in a rash and negligent manner. Appellant No. 1 and his driver further contended that the accident occurred as a result of negligence and rashness on the part of the driver of the claimant's ambassador car and not as a result of any rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the truck. The claim of Rs. 30,000/- was also denied on the ground that it was an exaggerated sum.

4. On 3rd February, 1984 an application was made by the owner of the truck and the driver of the truck seeking to join the Insurance Company, present appellant No. 2, as a party to the proceedings. This application was granted on 9th March 1984 and the present appellant No. 2 Insurance Company came to be added as original opponent No. 3 in the proceedings in the Tribunal. Issues were framed on the 23rd July 1984 and 30th August 1984 was the date fixed for hearing. On this day, the original claimant preferred an application for enhancing the claim from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 42,000/- on the ground that the repairs were completed by them and on the basis of certain bills and vouchers the costs of repairs was Rs. 42,000/- and hence, liberty was sought to amend the claim by enhancing it from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 42,000/-. This application was granted on the same day viz. 30th August 1984 and what has happened immediately thereafter has given rise to the controversy in this appeal.

5. Immediately upon the amendment being granted, the learned Member of the Tribunal passed the followi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document