Reva Khetrapal, J.

1. This petition is directed against the order dated 05.07.2010, passed by the Claims Tribunal, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, allowing the application filed by the Respondent No. 1 herein under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 Code of Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the petition.

2. The short question which arises for decision in the present petition is as to whether an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made by the father of the person injured without being duly authorized in writing.

3. The brief facts relevant for the decision of the petition are that a claim petition was filed on 12.07.2007 under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation against the Petitioner and the Respondents No. 2 and 3 on the ground that on 17.03.2007, when the Respondent No. 1 was on his way to Karol Bagh from his residence, the offending vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the Petitioner slammed into the Respondent No. 1 and ran over him, causing multiple injuries. The said petition was neither signed, nor verified, nor filed by the injured person, namely, Shri Ravinder Uppal, the Respondent No. 1. This necessitated the filing of an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. The Claims Tribunal in the impugned order noted as follows:

It is stated that during the cross examination of PW1, it was realized that though the present claim petition has been filed by the Petitioner through his father in a representative capacity but the said fact of representative character was not mentioned in the petition. Therefore, there is need for correction of the title and for the verification accordingly. The other amendment relates to the subsequent events in regard to claim of further treatment expenses and compensation for continued treatment.

Reply to the application has been filed by Respondent No. 3. Wherein it is stated that the present application has been filed merely to fill in the lacuna of the case. It would change the nature of the case and would also cause prejudice to the Respondents.

4. The Claims Tribunal, after hearing the counsel for the parties, allowed the first amendment as well as the second amendment. So far as the second amendment, which relates to the incorporation of subsequent events with regard to the further medical expenses incurred by the injured as a result of future complications and treatment of the injured is concerned, there is no dispute. The Petitioner, however, challenges the first amendment allowed by the Claims Tribunal on the ground that the amendment prayed for by the injured viz., the Respondent No. 1 and allowed by the Claims Tribunal has the effect of filling-up the lacunae left by the Respondent No. 1 and that too after the defence of the Petitioner had been put to the Respondent No. 1 in cross-examination, which is not permissible in law.

5. Mr. Anand Prakash, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner (who was the Respondent No. 1 in the Claim Petition), contended that serious prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner if the amendment prayed for by the claimant and allowed by the Claims Tribunal by the impugned order is not set aside by this Court. The counsel for the Petitioner also contended that in the cause title of the petition, it was nowhere indicated that the petition was being filed through the Power of Attorney of the Respondent No. 1 nor it was mentioned in the petition itself that it was signed and verified through the Power of Attorney and, as a matter of fact, there was no power conferred upon Shri Pradeep Kumar Uppal, the father of the Respondent No. 1-claimant, to sign, verify and institute the petition on behalf of the Respondent No. 1. The petition, having been filed by the father of the Respondent No. 1, without authorization from the Respondent No. 1, was not maintainable in law and hen