Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57426
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
SHAMJU – Appellant
Versus
SUNITHA – Respondent
OP (MAC) NO. 133 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.G.S.REGHUNATH
For the Respondents: SRI.R.NIKHIL, SMT.K.K.NESNA
The court clarified the necessity for a tribunal to provide reasons when allowing amendments in claim proceedings.
Headnote:The case concerns the amendment of a compensation claim for a motor accident, where the petitioner sought to increase the claimed amount from ₹3 lakhs to ₹5 lakhs. The Tribunal's failure to provide reasons for allowing the amendment necessitated a review application, which was also rejected, prompting the court to remand the matter for proper reconducting. The key issues revolve around procedural fairness in the amendment process and the Tribunal's duty to provide reasons. The court ultimately ordered a rehearing of the amendment request and directed timely processing of the case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts regarding the compensation claim. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments concerning the amendment application. (Para 2) |
| 3. observations on the tribunal's reasoning requirements. (Para 3) |
| 4. court's directive for rehearing the amendment. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner herein is the respondent in OP(MV) No. 852/2016 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara filed by the respondent herein claiming compensation of Rs.3 lakhs on account of an accident detailed in the claim petition. Thereafter, the petitioner in OP(MV) filed an application for amendment seeking enhancement of the amount to Rs. ₹5 lakhs, which was allowed as per Ext.P5(a) order.
2. The petitioner filed a review application before the Tribunal, contending that he did not get a chance to oppose the amendment application, and it was allowed without affording an opportunity to oppose the same. The review application was also rejected, granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all the contentions.
3. A reading of Ext.P5(a) shows that no reason at all is stated for allowing the amendment application. The Tribunal has to give a reason, at least briefly, for allowing the application. Though a review was filed, the same was also rejected, permitting the petitioner to raise all the contentions at the time of the final hearing.
4. On the short ground that no reason has been stated in the order allowing the amendment. I am inclined to set aside Ext.P5(a) and also the order passed in Ext.P7. There will be a direction to the Tribunal concerned to rehear IA 4/2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioner herein shall file his objections, if any, within two weeks from today. The Tribunal concerned will pass appropriate orders in the amendment application within two weeks thereafter. Final orders shall be passed in OP(MV) No.852/2016, at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on
05.01.2026.
The original petition is disposed of as above.
