( 1 ) AMENDMENT allowed. This appeal has been pressed on all counts by the Insurance Company which ordinarily it would not be permitted to. The Company, however, had taken precaution before the Motor Accident Claims tribunal (Aux) of Kheda at Nadiad in M. A. C. Petition No. 1237 of 1990 to obtain permission by filing application Exh. 41 and the learned Advocate, Mr. Parikh on behalf of the appellant was therefore, heard on all points.

( 2 ) THE first point raised was that the FIR indicates an intentional act on the part of the driver of the offending truck No. GRT 4728. However, copy of the FIR shown to us by the learned Advocate does not show any intentional act at all and the learned tribunal Judge, while dealing with this aspect under issue No. 1, has in our opinion, correctly dealt with the situation. A faint attempt was made to make out that the FIR relied on for the purpose is not one which was submitted by the auto-rickshaw driver. However, the Company itself is replying upon it its written statement Exh. 55 and after discussing that and other material on record the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that it is a negligent act and not an intentional one