HARI SWARUP, J. :- This appeal has been filed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge by which he allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by which the Tribunal had rejected the application of the respondents for an enhanced claim under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. One Devendra Bahri had suffered motor accident on January 9, 1970, and was injured. An application under Section 110-A was moved by him within limitation. Subsequently, he died on November 11, 1970. His heirs, who are respondents in this appeal, moved an application for substitution and amendment of the original application before the Tribunal claiming enhancement of the claim of compensation as the victim of the accident had died. They also urged that if amendments were not possible, the claim may be treated as a fresh claim. The Tribunal allowed the application for substitution but dismissed the other applications holding that the applications for fresh claim and the enhanced claim were barred by limitation and there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Against the order rejecting the applications a writ petition was filed it has been allowed by the learned Single Judge and the order of the Tribunal dismissing the application for amendment has been set aside. The result of the judgment is that the Tribunal will now permit the amendment to be made in the application for enhanced claim.

3. The learned Single Judge has taken the view that the application once moved within time for a claim under Section 110-A can be amended for a higher amount of claim, in case death subsequently occurs, even though it may be moved after the limitation for filing a fresh application has expired. He has further held that the circumstances of the case were sufficient to justify extension of time for entertainment of the claim even if the period of limitation prescribed by law was applicable, and that the Tribunal was in error in not extending that period under the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 110-A of the Act. Section 110-A (1) reads as under :

"An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 110 may be made-

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or

(b) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or

(c) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be.

(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, and shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed.

(3) No application for compensation under this section shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident."

The cause of action for the claim in either case, whether the application is made by the injured or his heirs after

death, arises with accident. The application contemplated by Section 110-A in either case is only for compensation payable for the injury sustained by the victim during the accident. Hence, once an application has been moved within time for a claim, its amendment can always be made as there is no provision in the Act prohibiting the amendment of the application after the lapse of a particular time. As the application has to be only for compensation for the injury suffered during the accident, the question of the claim becoming barred after the Tribunal has been moved within time through a proper application does not arise. The determination of the quantum of compensation will depend upon the final consequences of the accident. Under Section 110-B, the Tribunal has to award such compensation as may appear to it to be just. It is under law also the duty of the Tribunal to specify the persons to whom compensation shall be paid. The petitioners only sought to