Amendment of claims is essential for justice to avoid technical barriers, thus promoting fair compensation in accident cases.

COMMON ORDER

These revisions are at the instance of the claimants, who have approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by them in a motor accident.

2.The claimants, who are revision petitioners herein, had taken out applications to amend the claim petitions and also to implead the owner of another vehicle and the insurer, with whom the said vehicle had been insured. All the applications came to be dismissed by the Tribunal, as against which, the present revisions have been preferred.

3.I have heard Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel, learned counsel for the petitioner in all the revisions, Mr.S.P.Chockalingam, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent in all the revisions and Mrs.N.B.Surekha, learned counsel for the 5^th respondent in CRP.Nos.2295 & 2298 of 2025.

4.The case of the claimants/revision petitioners is that they had filed the claim petitions as against the offending lorry and the Insurance Company with whom the said lorry had been insured. However, subsequently, the petitioners have been advised to seek amendment of the claim petitions and also implead the owners as well as the insurer of the Eicher vehicle, which was also involved in the accident.

5.Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel, learned counsel for the petitioner in all the revisions would refer to the First Information Report, which was only at the instance of the claimants and state that there is a specific mention about the role of the Eicher vehicle in the accident and he would point out that FIR clearly records the statement of the claimants that it was only the Eicher vehicle that came and dashed against the claimants. He would therefore state that in order to avoid any technical objections that may be put against the claimants, the amendments as well as impleading applications ought to have been allowed. He would therefore pray for the revisions being allowed.

6.Per contra, Mr.S.P.Chockalingam, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent in the revisions would state that in the claim petition, the version projected is only that the lorry was at fault and therefore, the 2^nd respondent in the capacity of being the insurer of the lorry has been impleaded. He would further state that the 2^nd respondent is willing to abide by any orders of this Court with regard to the amendment and the impleading applications.

7.However, Mrs.N.B.Surekha, learned counsel for the 5^th respondent, namely the insurer of Eicher vehicle would contend that in the claim petition as well as in the proof affidavit, there is no reference to the role of the Eicher vehicle and therefore, the claimants cannot introduce a new case by way of amendment. She would further contend that the 5^th respondent is totally an unnecessary party and the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the applications. She would also place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. , and Others, passed in Civil Appeal No.4244 of 2015 dated 07.05.2015, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even when there is a case of composite negligence, there was an option to the claimant to recover damages at his option from any of the two tort-feasors. She would therefore state that there is absolutely no prejudice caused to the claimants and in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khenyei's case, even assuming it is a case of composite negligence, the 5^th respondent is not a necessary party.

8.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

9.No doubt, in the claim petition as well as the proof affidavit, there is no whisper about the role of the Eicher vehicle in the a