Proposed amendments that significantly alter the nature of the original claim may not be allowed, and the tribunal's decision to implead parties may be upheld.

Ashok Bhan, J.

1. This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No. 203 of 1991 Rachhpal Singh v. Union of India and Ors. and Civil Revision No. 204 of 1991 Jaswant Kaur v. Union of India and Ors. as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the cases. The difference of facts is stated in the next paragraph No. 2.

2. An accident took place on 14.1.89 in the area of village Pandori between bus bearing registration No.PAB 6118 and a railway train. In Civil Revision No. 203 of 1991 Rachhpal Singh who was travelling in the bus filed a claim application for compensation of Rs. 4 lacs in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. In Civil Revision Jaswant Kaur mother of deceased Harjap Singh claiming compensation of Rs. 4 lacs in respect of death of Harjap Singh who was also in the same bus.

3. It was pleaded in the application that the bus involved in the accident was being driven by the driver at a normal speed and the accident took place due to negligence and rashness of the driver of the engine of the train as he did not blow the whistle at the time of crossing unmanned gate. It was also pleaded in the application that the bus conductor and some other passenger received injuries.

4. Two separate claim applications have been filed by these two claimants which arise out of the same accident. In these two claim applications two separate applications were filed by both the claimants for amendment of the claim petition and to plead that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the bus driver as well. Another prayer made was that Sukhbir Singh and Bhupinder Singh owners of the bus be added as respondents in the claim application.

5. Notice of this application was given to the respondents who filed their replies and opposed the application. Rachhpal Singh applicant has pleaded that the facts he wants to add could not be incorporated in the earlier application inadvertently whereas Jaswant Kaur petitioner in Civil Revision No. 204 of 1991 had pleaded that Sukhbir Singh and Bhupinder Singh owners of the bus were her cousins and they had accompanied her to the lawyer who framed the allegations in the original application. In the application for proposed amendment it is stated that above facts could not be mentioned in the earlier claim application either inadvertently or at the instance of Bhupinder Singh and Sukhjbir Singh cousin brothers of Jaswant Kaur. They had narrated wrong facts to the counsel in order to escape their own liability. The counsel on the facts narrated to them filed the claim petition. She also prayed that through the proposed amendment the applicants want to add the plea that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently. The driver of the bus and the passengers saw the railway engine coming from Nakodar side at a distance of 15 meters and the passengers of the bus shouted and asked the driver of the bus to stop the bus but the driver of the bus did not agree and said that he would cross the railway level prior to the arrival of the trial. The driver of the bus tried to cross the railway level in a hurry and rash and negligent manner as a result of which the railway engine hit rear portion of the bus NO. PAB-6118. The other prayer made was that they be allowed to add Sukhbir Singh and Bhupinder Singh as respondents being the co-owners of the bus. This plea has been declined by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The petitioners being aggrieved have come to this Court in revision.

6. I have heard the counsel for the revision petitioner and find no force in this revision petition. In the earlier claim application the claimants had clearly written that driver of the bus was driving the bus at a normal speed at the time of the accident and mishappening took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the train. The proposed amendment would totally displace the earlier claim petition. The claim application is pending for the last 5 years. The proposed amendment can