Mr. Justice L. Manoharan, President—The opposite parties in O.P. 355/98 on the file of the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram are the appellants. They were counter-petitioners in I.A. 174/98 moved by the complainant therein for amendment of the complaint. By the impugned order the District Forum allowed the petition.

2. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner sought to maintain that the impugned order is faulty, firstly because the District Forum did not have inherent jurisdiction to entertain the complaint itself, therefore, the District Forum could not have entertained the application for amendment. It was then urged by the learned Counsel, there being no specific allegation as to negligence, the complaint could not be entertained. As according to the learned Counsel relief of compensation could have been granted only when the complainant suffers injury on account of the negligence of the opposite party. It was also urged that the amendment could be entertained only for events that occurred after the institution of the complaint. It is urged by the learned Counsel, the petition for amendment itself having been filed after the complaint was posted to consider as to maintainability,